surrealist questions
Mags
If no, why most of them think they do?
If yes, well...
Why do surrealists questions things?
What kind of things do they question?
M.
Nikolaus Maack
>Do surrealists know everything?
No.
>If no, why most of them think they do?
Human beings like to think they know almost everything. Admitting we
know nothing is a very humbling and scary experience. It's like
admitting we have no control over our own lives. We feel small and
lost when we admit we know nothing with any certainty.
>Why do surrealists questions things?
The more questions we ask, the less answers we have to listen to,
other than our own. Ever gotten into an argument with a small child
who, with every statement you make, keeps asking "Why?" Sometimes
they do this because they are genuinely curious. Other times they do
this because it keeps you at a distance. They don't have to listen to
your answers. They can keep asking "Why?" until you finally snap and
say, "That's just the way it is," or "Just because."
Everyone (including me) does this -- asks WHY over and over -- to a
certain extent.
>What kind of things do they question?
Everything, except ourselves. We don't like questioning ourselves.
It leads to the realization that we don't know anything.
All WHYs lead to a JUST BECAUSE.
Nik
---
The Nik Maack Art Gallery
http://www.chat.carleton.ca/~mrtribe
Now with exciting TEXT explaining why
each painting should not be burned.
dale houstman
Nikolaus Maack <ac...@freenet.carleton.ca> wrote in message
news:381ce154....@news.ncf.carleton.ca...
> Mags <mk...@is9.nyu.edu> wrote:
>If no, why most of them think they do (know everything)?
Of course, since Nik isn't a surrealist his answer misses the real problem
here: the question is leading, isn't it? If you have ever read any
surrealist writing, you will see that on the contrary doubt crop up quite
readily. And it is a running theme that surrealism does not have "all the
answers" but is a method in progress. Nik's assertion to the contrary is
pure bull.
>Human beings like to think they know almost everything.
Maybe the mooks and proto-monkeys you hang around with in Ottawa think this
way, but very few of the people I know
are this arrogant and insipid. This is really just more of your awkward
philistine attitude trying to disguise itself as intelligence.
>admitting we know nothing is a very humbling and scary >experience.
Again, maybe the mooks and proto-monkeys you hang around with "know nothing"
but this is really a stupid statement; how do you "know" that admitting we
know nothing is humbling" if you insist humans know nothing? Unless you
classify yourself as being non-human? Very weak thinking on your part. It's
merely snottily dismissive without an iota of actual conception. Typical of
you...
> >Why do surrealists questions things?
Strange that: if surrealists claim to know everything, why would they
question things? Even odder, you seem to imply that BOTH stances are somehow
aberrant! To know is arrogance, and to question is - what precisely - weak?
>
> The more questions we ask, the less answers we have to >listen to, other
than our own.
The corollary to this would be: the less questions we ask, the more answers
we have to listen to? Or the less questions we ask, the less answers we have
to listen to? Or the more questions we listen to, the less answers we ask?
Your answer is another in a long series of ill-constructed pseudo-ideas,
informed by the ragged remnants of mystical blither.
>
> >What kind of things do they question?
>
> Everything, except ourselves.
You keep answering as though you were a surrealist, and as if you had any
intellectual authority to put forth such tepid drivel as thought. In reality
you are a philistine pretending to be a surrealist, because nothing else you
pretend to be has panned out for you.
>We don't like questioning ourselves.
"We"? So surrealists are not individuals, but some mass entity you feel
qualified to answer for?
> All WHYs lead to a JUST BECAUSE.
Cute. Wrong. But cute. Like the punchline to a third-rate newspaper cartoon
strip.
If you believe so vehemently in the non-existence of answers, why do you
assume to provide so many? How do you know that all WHYs lead to a JUST
BECAUSE? Is this an observation: but isn't that knowledge? Aren't you
claiming that we know nothing?
You have used the language to built a labyrinth about yourself. Soon you wil
run out of mind food and have to eat your own imagination. Meager fare at
best, Nik. You won't last long under the rubble.
DMH
Kristina
I also said recently get out of your head and enjoy the more tactile feeling
type experiences. What you have written below here is just a complete and
utter lie....please scroll down....
Nikolaus Maack <ac...@freenet.carleton.ca> wrote in message
news:381ce154....@news.ncf.carleton.ca...
> Mags <mk...@is9.nyu.edu> wrote:
> >Do surrealists know everything?
>
> No.
Does anyone know everything? It's a stupid question too broad for debating
or discussing even. (In all seriousness).
>
> >If no, why most of them think they do?
>
> Human beings like to think they know almost everything. Admitting we
> know nothing is a very humbling and scary experience. It's like
> admitting we have no control over our own lives. We feel small and
> lost when we admit we know nothing with any certainty.
I think you are the only one that likes to think you know everything. I
have no desire to know everything or even come close for that matter....I
don't feel small either...(actually I can't believe I'm even bothering
here). What you say is typical of alot of what you say, it makes no sense
basically.
>
> >Why do surrealists questions things?
>
> The more questions we ask, the less answers we have to listen to,
> other than our own. Ever gotten into an argument with a small child
> who, with every statement you make, keeps asking "Why?" Sometimes
> they do this because they are genuinely curious. Other times they do
> this because it keeps you at a distance. They don't have to listen to
> your answers. They can keep asking "Why?" until you finally snap and
> say, "That's just the way it is," or "Just because."
Seems to me you are again expressing your somewhat retarded ideas as truth
and whenever anyone questions them, you just go on and on, asking "why" and
"why" and "why"......without listening at all.
>
> Everyone (including me) does this -- asks WHY over and over -- to a
> certain extent.
I have noticed you do this, much to my annoyance. I never ask "why" unless
I WANT to KNOW something, and then I make a point of listening to what that
person is saying. There is no game in that process of communication for me,
I have better ways of occupying my time without insulting someone else's
time or mine for that matter.
>
> >What kind of things do they question?
>
> Everything, except ourselves. We don't like questioning ourselves.
> It leads to the realization that we don't know anything.
Again, a perfect self portrait here...you question everything without really
seeking the answers or listening....therefore the insessant banter hearing
only yourself. You have far outstretched yourself there. You really anoy
me you know. You harass me about my artwork, and how goddam high and mighty
I am not to share it with you, I make an attempt to do so, and then you just
leave it. This is my latest personal experience with you. You ask and ask
and ask, and when someone does meet you halfway, you loose interest. I
think you just gloat on yourself and essentially are not interested at all
in communicating with people. Just communicating yourself.
>
> All WHYs lead to a JUST BECAUSE.
Yes, your WHY's lead to just because, because you don't know any better.
And more importantly you have no WISH to learn anything. Why are you here?
There are plenty of close minded academics that perfer to debate old and
worn out scores with one another, seeing who has a deeper grasp of the
psychological and what not. I see no imagination in you what so ever.
Fascinan
>You ask and ask
>and ask, and when someone does meet you halfway, you loose interest.
"barrett john erickson" bar...@magneticfields.org:
>without meaning to sound critical (although i'm afraid this is >unavoidable)
>i am loosing patience
Interesting:
Both "Kristina" and Barrett "loose" something, agree readily with the Dale
entity, and are quick to attack Nik.
Could be something, could be nothing.....just an observation.
Lutegirl
>
1.reality
Nikolaus Maack
[A lot of typically angry Dale Houstman stuff]
There's a post in which someone asks, why do surrealists behave as if
they know everything, and why do they go around questioning
everything? Dale, you followed up behaving exactly in the way the
original poster described. You acted like you had all the answers --
"Nik is not a surrealist! Nik doesn't have the intellectual capacity
to answer these questions!" -- and you questioned every single
statement I made.
I said:
>>Human beings like to think they know almost everything.
This is a psychological fact. It's why cognitive dissonace exists.
It's why advertising works on everyone "but me". It's why, when faced
with a light that flashes at random intervals, people are convinced
that their pushing a button -- which is not even attached to the light
-- controls the light in some way. It's why people report they are
"slightly more lucky" and "slightly more intelligent" than the average
person.
Human beings like to think they know everything. Each of us likes to
think of ourselves as "special". We aren't, of course, except that we
are "us". We treasure our own persons to the point where we can't
judge ourselves clearly. Psychological fact.
I said:
>>admitting we know nothing is a very humbling and scary >experience.
There is also a principle in psychology known as the "sadder but
wiser" phenomena. People who report that they are "depressed" are
much more likely to give an accurate guess as to how much control they
have over that random flashing light. Whether there is a causal
relationship between the two facts -- does the depression cause you to
be a better judge, or does being a better judge cause you to be
depressed? -- is up for debate.
>You keep answering as though you were a surrealist, and as if you had any
>intellectual authority to put forth such tepid drivel as thought.
A Bachelor of Arts in Psychology, with Honors, from Carleton
University.
Nikolaus Maack
>You really anoy
>me you know.
I kind of guessed I did, but I wasn't sure.
>You harass me about my artwork, and how goddam high and mighty
>I am not to share it with you, I make an attempt to do so, and then you just
>leave it.
I couldn't see the one piece of artwork you put online,
unfortunately, as my newsreader sometimes refuses to decipher
attachments. I'm not sure why. Probably has something to do with my
el cheapo newsreader software -- I'm using Free Agent. I didn't
mention my inability to read it before because it's a boring technical
problem that doesn't seem worth bitching about.
I'm hoping you'll discuss some of your art work here -- you mentioned
sound and sculpture and other materials combined; presumably that sort
of thing can't be put online. Any chance you can describe some of
this stuff to me? I am still curious about it. I decided not to keep
bugging you because you seemed, well, sensitive on the issue.
Any chance that you'll put the stuff that can be displayed online on a
web page somewhere?
>I see no imagination in you what so ever.
Perhaps that's because my imagination is growing in a different
direction than yours. You are the person who didn't understand what I
meant when I said, "Listen to the sound of the person's silence to
determine what kind of silence it is." In my mind, this is a poetic
statement that is self-explanatory. To you it was gibberish.
"Listen to the silence? You can't! Silence doesn't make a sound!"
Which is why I broke it down for you into a less abstract idea. I run
into this same conflict with Dale all the time, whether he knows it or
not. I say something that I consider "poetic" enough to get the
general idea across, and he insists that I break this down into
"factual" bits of information that make sense to him. Which strikes
me as tedious.
Then again, if you ask Dale, he'll tell you that I have no poetry in
me whatsoever. Also, I'm a moron, not a surrealist, and a whole bunch
of things. Maybe you've already come to these conclusions yourself?
In any case, you're not alone in your way of thinking. My roommate's
mother found the Simon and Garfunkle song "The Sound of Silence"
utterly maddening.
"Silence doesn't make a sound!" she growled. "There is no sound of
silence! It doesn't make sense!"
Whenever the song came on the radio, she changed stations. The
statement "the sound of silence" struck her as infuriatingly
inaccurate.
I'm not trying to make fun of you for thinking this way. What I'm
trying to demonstrate is we don't think in the same way. I don't know
if you're familiar with the Myers-Brigg personality scale, but I sense
that you and I are very different. On their test, I come out as an
INFP -- an introverted, intuitive, feeling, perceiving type.
This is about as flakey as a human being can get. Statistically
speaking, most INFPs end up being journalists or therapists. When I
found this out, it spooked the heck out of me. When I applied to
university, I applied for the journalism and psychology programs.
The opposite characteristics of each of the traits I listed are, in
order, extroverted, sensing, thinking, and judging. I'd bet a case of
beer that you'd register as a judging preference.
This is all probably gibberish to you. Maybe not.
dale houstman
Lutegirl <lute...@aol.com> wrote in message
news:19991101132039...@ng-cs1.aol.com...
> >What kind of things do they question?
> >
>
> 1.reality
They question the appropriation and exploitation of that reality by those
who would sell it back to us in pieces, so as to extend their profit margin
and market position by diluting reality with disassociation and fillers of a
corrupted nature.
DMH
dale houstman
Fascinan <fasc...@aol.com> wrote in message
news:19991101121816...@ng-fs1.aol.com...
We are all just sarcomas on Nik's fading onion ass.
("loose" is a common typo: almost pandemic...)
As for Nik, you misunderstand: we are not quick to attack Nik... personally
we would gladly ignore him I suppose, since he brings nothing to the
discussion of surrealism (he is not alone in this position), but yet
presents his little philistine blurbs AS IF he were a surrealist. And so we
attack him NOT as an entity in humself, but as a BAd EXAMPLE. He is quite
beyond hope of resuscitation, because he uses language as a non-permeable
barrier between his broken consciousness and the efforts of the world
(agsinst all odds) to re-intergrate him: YET his blather must be countered
if only to assure those who may be new to the subject of surrealism that it
is indeed NOT the vapid self-serving stupidity Nik seems in thrall to, and
is NOT merely a vessel for hysteric "soul-baring" outbursts.
Dale "I am Looser Than You" Houstman
barrett john erickson
news:7vkpor$tfu$1...@nntp6.atl.mindspring.net...
> ("loose" is a common typo: almost pandemic...)
yes, i heard this on the noose.
-- barrett
BLUE FEATHERS #2 is now available
http://www.MagneticFields.org/blue/
bar...@MagneticFields.org
http://www.MagneticFields.org/
==============================================
"Everything tends to make us believe that there exists a
certain point of the mind at which life and death, the real and
the imagined, past and future, the communicable and the
incommunicable, high and low, cease to be perceived as
contradictions."
...André Breton
==============================================
Fascinan
>
>yes, i heard this on the noose.
>
>
>-- barrett
LOL
Fascinan
>INFP -- an introverted, intuitive, feeling, perceiving type.
I'm an INFP as well, so the test tells me. 1% of the test takers are INFP.
Apparently, we appear as spacy, dreamy, as if from another planet. Personally
it's why it's difficult for me to converse in logical, detailed, and focused
manner (ala Dale entity, Barrett, Kristina, etc) -- I'm much more at ease
posting detached, lithe bits. Makes things more interesting if anything, I
suppose.
>This is about as flakey as a human being can get. Statistically
>speaking, most INFPs end up being journalists or therapists.
or in therapy.
quick digression (what the hell, everything I write is digression) :
I for one appreciate Nik's openess and determination for sharing ideas. He's
not afraid to expose any weakness in the process of communicating; this is
admirable, because most of the time we are busy building up our defenses.
Okay, I stand here eating a tombstone pizza awaiting the firing squad of angry
surrealists.......
dale houstman
barrett john erickson <bar...@magneticfields.org> wrote in message
news:iUmT3.954$rK2....@ptah.visi.com...
> "dale houstman" <dm...@mindspring.com> wrote in message
> news:7vkpor$tfu$1...@nntp6.atl.mindspring.net...
>
> yes, i heard this on the noose.
You have hit it on the noose...
DMH
Nikolaus Maack
>I'm an INFP as well, so the test tells me. 1% of the test takers are INFP.
I was going to mention that we INFPs are a rare breed, but I figured
"the surrealist gang" would assume I was trying to make myself seem
really interesting and rare and exciting and etc. You know me -- I'm
such a self-promoter.
>Apparently, we appear as spacy, dreamy, as if from another planet. Personally
>it's why it's difficult for me to converse in logical, detailed, and focused
>manner (ala Dale entity, Barrett, Kristina, etc) -- I'm much more at ease
>posting detached, lithe bits. Makes things more interesting if anything, I
>suppose.
According to some of the stuff I've read, INFPs want to communicate on
an a one-on-one level, about personal details, and personal matters.
Which is presumably why they (we) gravitate toward journalism and
therapy. We also have the annoying ability of seeing the world from
everyone's perspective. Choosing a perspective, and taking a stand,
becomes difficult. But damn it, why should we take a stand?
EVERYTHING IS TRUE, I TELLS YA! EVERYTHING!
Logical, detailed, focus stuff is a hassle, I agree. I often find
myself saying things like, "Forget reason. Where's the fun in that?
Let's just exchange bizarre intuitive moments." When someone is in
the midst of a hot and heavy logic fest, I'm always tempted to throw
an "intuition wrench" into the gears. Which pisses everyone off, it
seems.
Playing the non-reason game sometimes even works with Dale. There was
a time when he and I threw poetry back and forth at each other, and it
was fun. I wonder if he remembers? Now he's taking his balls and
burning down my home. Oh well.
>I for one appreciate Nik's openess and determination for sharing ideas. He's
>not afraid to expose any weakness in the process of communicating; this is
>admirable, because most of the time we are busy building up our defenses.
Thanks, Fascinan. Your one vote for not having me murdered is
appreciated. At least by me.
dale houstman
> I'm an INFP as well, so the test tells me. 1% of the test takers are
INFP.
I'm a NASA; these are VERY spacey, but half their ideas end up burning on
the conceptual launchpad. And even the simplest meditation costs billions!
> it's why it's difficult for me to converse in logical, detailed, >and
focused manner (ala Dale entity, Barrett, Kristina, etc)
Not certain at all you've pegged me (can't speak for the others): it takes
an immense amount of effort to me to appear so linear and focused. Mainly I
spend my time drifting between idle thoughts, waiting for the wind to pick
up and waft me to a sunnier harbor. I am most cozy with a sort of snaking
and diassociated type of talk. I only appear strict in my logic next to
someone like Nik, who has abandoned logic altogether but (more importantly)
forgotten to pick up anything in its stead.
> quick digression (what the hell, everything I write is >digression) :
>
> I for one appreciate Nik's openess and determination for >sharing ideas.
He's not afraid to expose any weakness in the >process of communicating;
this is admirable, because most >of the time we are busy building up our
defenses.
Though I can appreciate this reading, I must say you seem to have gotten Nik
pegged incorrectly also: he is easily the most defensive personality on this
ng, as evidenced by his easy resort to the phrase. He's a very good
"projectionist." His "openness" is actually an awkward cover (amongst many
similar covers) for his true impermeability. He is only happy when he is
initiating an idea (whether or not it is lame), and rarely can join in
(except aggressively) in conversations he has not initiated. He strikes me
as much more the type you'd find at a party trying desperately to "fit into"
some ongoing conversation, only to be rebuffed as a nuisance. His "ideas"
are truly third rate, which wouldn't matter if he were open to discussion.
Look at the blithering irrelevancies he attempted to interject into an
otherwise quite interesting conversation between you and me. While you and I
(in no way) agree on any particular point, we permit our consciousnesses a
certain useful permeabiltiy in discussion. Nik has none of this: he is
incapable of a true dialogue.
> Okay, I stand here eating a tombstone pizza awaiting the >firing squad of
angry surrealists.......
Silly boy, everyone knows surrealists prefer the Iron Maiden because of the
erotic potential. Prepare to be "punctured..."
DMH
Brandon J. Freels
> There's a post in which someone asks, why do surrealists behave as if
> they know everything, and why do they go around questioning
> everything?
This is a contradiction. How can someone claim to know everything yet
question everything simultaneously?
> >>Human beings like to think they know almost everything.
> This is a psychological fact.
No Nik, its a sociological generalization. You're generalizing groups of
people again.
> Human beings like to think they know everything. Each of us likes to
> think of ourselves as "special". We aren't, of course, except that we
> are "us". We treasure our own persons to the point where we can't
> judge ourselves clearly. Psychological fact.
Sociological generization. Damn it. I thought you were a psych major, not a
sociology major?
> A Bachelor of Arts in Psychology, with Honors, from Carleton
> University.
Are you sure that's not a Bachelor of Arts in Generalizing Large Groups of
People, with Honors, from Auschwitz University?
Brandon J. Freels
> I was going to mention that we INFPs are a rare breed, but I figured
> "the surrealist gang" would assume I was trying to make myself seem
> really interesting and rare and exciting and etc. You know me -- I'm
> such a self-promoter.
Well yes you are a self-promoter, but the problem I have with the
Myers-Briggs test is that it attempts to cement a mask onto our fluxing
personality. You are only an INFP the moment you take the test, tommorrow
you're not.
In my late teens I took the test three times with three different results.
[don't remember the results now]
Brandon J. Freels
> I don't know if you're familiar with the Myers-Brigg personality scale,
but I sense
> INFP -- an introverted, intuitive, feeling, perceiving type.
Myers-Briggs:
http://skepdic.com/myersb.html
> This is all probably gibberish to you.
Gibberish? More like a GAME really...
Brandon J. Freels
Fascinan wrote
barrett john erickson
> I said:
> >>Human beings like to think they know almost everything.
>
> This is a psychological fact.
what the hell is a "psychological fact"?
[i suppose "paranoid-schizophrenics" have the edge on us here.]
> Human beings like to think they know everything. Each of us likes to
> think of ourselves as "special". We aren't, of course, except that we
> are "us". We treasure our own persons to the point where we can't
> judge ourselves clearly. Psychological fact.
>
since i'm a human being i felt compelled to answer this slander (i could've
ignored all the rest).
shit, i can't think of anything more likely to induce coma than to _want_ to
know everything, nor anything more tragically boring than to actually _know_
everything.
> I said:
> >>admitting we know nothing is a very humbling and scary >experience.
on the contrary, it's such a banal observation that it has no mass at all
among those who see living as a process of creative exploration.
dale houstman
> fasc...@aol.com (Fascinan) wrote:
> I was going to mention that we INFPs are a rare breed, but >I figured the
surrealist gang" would assume I was trying to >make myself seem really
interesting and rare and exciting >and etc. You know me -- I'm such a
self-promoter.
Well you are. But you keep making these generalized (and defensive)
statements that only muddy the waters of your already turgid pond. Actually,
I wouldn't have thought much of anything about the INFP thing: I took a
Minnesota Multiphasic Test once and received a "false positive" which means
it doesn't measure me accurately; I had to take another test that was
equally as pointless. IQ tests, personality profiles, etc etc yadda yadda
yadda. True crap.
>
>
> According to some of the stuff I've read, INFPs want to >communicate on an
a one-on-one level, about personal >details, and personal matters.
How quaint: when are you going to do this?
> We also have the annoying ability of seeing the world from
> everyone's perspective.
??? You're deluding yourself, if you think this is either a positive trait
or a descrition of you.
>
> EVERYTHING IS TRUE, I TELLS YA! EVERYTHING!
Nik is a beaver's asshole smeared with boar saliva?
>
> Playing the non-reason game sometimes even works with >Dale. There was a
time when he and I threw poetry back >and forth at each other, and it was
fun. I wonder if he >remembers? Now he's taking his balls and burning down
>my home. Oh well.
Your sentimentality and self-pity is quite nauseating. You seem to think
this is called "moi.nik.weep" or some such thing. Isn't your girlfriend
handy to rub your little head and tell you that you're terrific?
DMH
Brandon J. Freels
> We also have the annoying ability of seeing the world from
> everyone's perspective.
Impossible.
1) You must know everyone's perspective before you can see it.
2) Knowing everyone's perspective is impossible.
3) Therefore, seeing everyone's perspective is impossible.
Additional point: If you could see everyone's perspective would you be
constantly enthrawled in arguments? An individual who can see the
perspective of the individual s/he is arguing with is usually the one who
stops arguing.
Here is your main problem, Nik [let me play doctor for a bit]:
You ASSUME to much!
1) You assume that you can read minds when you obviously can't.
2) You assume that generalizations, especially when attached to large groups
of people, are valid. One only needs to open the newspaper to the horoscopes
to understand how generalizations can make things fit even when in detail
they don't.
dale houstman wrote
> Nik is a beaver's asshole smeared with boar saliva?
True.
Kristina
> I'm hoping you'll discuss some of your art work here -- you mentioned
> sound and sculpture and other materials combined; presumably that sort
> of thing can't be put online. Any chance you can describe some of
> this stuff to me? I am still curious about it. I decided not to keep
> bugging you because you seemed, well, sensitive on the issue.
If I ever get a webpage, I'll post the address. Aside from that, discussing
it is something of a difficulty for me. I can talk about the concepts and
what-not behind the art, but this does not interest me so much without the
interaction of looking at the work with another.
>
> Any chance that you'll put the stuff that can be displayed online on a
> web page somewhere?
>
> >I see no imagination in you what so ever.
>
> Perhaps that's because my imagination is growing in a different
> direction than yours. You are the person who didn't understand what I
> meant when I said, "Listen to the sound of the person's silence to
> determine what kind of silence it is." In my mind, this is a poetic
> statement that is self-explanatory. To you it was gibberish.
Okay, your imagination is different to mine then. (Thank you! for pointing
that out). Yes, I have a hard time seeing your imagination, but I'm also
quite partial to being an arrogant person, so ignore me.
>
> "Listen to the silence? You can't! Silence doesn't make a sound!"
Oh please.... You think silence is something reserved just for you? Thank
you for that rather huge exclamation of a thought.
>
> Which is why I broke it down for you into a less abstract idea.
I love how you stupify me and make me small in one sentence, it is a feat
only you manage Nik. Yes, of course, you need to break it down for me so
that I can understand YOU...and hear what you are experiencing in your
silence. Did it ever occur to you that communicating is something that
involves more than one person (well not always, we do communicate in other
ways alone)...
I run
> into this same conflict with Dale all the time, whether he knows it or
> not. I say something that I consider "poetic" enough to get the
> general idea across, and he insists that I break this down into
> "factual" bits of information that make sense to him. Which strikes
> me as tedious.
I find it hard to see the "poetic" in your mind. You analyse the hell out
of everything without the imagination to filter and process it for yourself.
>
> Then again, if you ask Dale, he'll tell you that I have no poetry in
> me whatsoever. Also, I'm a moron, not a surrealist, and a whole bunch
> of things. Maybe you've already come to these conclusions yourself?
Why are you discussing Dale here, are he and I one entity? Really, I cannot
speak for Dale, nor will I generalise and assume to know what he thinks of
you or the lack thereof of your poetic! (regarding what you have said
here). I don't see your thought processes as "surrealist" as such, no I
don't, whether or not you are a moron or an idiot is something I won't go
into. I'm not interested.
>
> In any case, you're not alone in your way of thinking. My roommate's
> mother found the Simon and Garfunkle song "The Sound of Silence"
> utterly maddening.
>
> "Silence doesn't make a sound!" she growled. "There is no sound of
> silence! It doesn't make sense!"
>
> Whenever the song came on the radio, she changed stations. The
> statement "the sound of silence" struck her as infuriatingly
> inaccurate.
>
> I'm not trying to make fun of you for thinking this way.
What way exactly am I thinking?
> What I'm
> trying to demonstrate is we don't think in the same way. I don't know
> if you're familiar with the Myers-Brigg personality scale, but I sense
> that you and I are very different. On their test, I come out as an
> INFP -- an introverted, intuitive, feeling, perceiving type.
>
> This is about as flakey as a human being can get. Statistically
> speaking, most INFPs end up being journalists or therapists. When I
> found this out, it spooked the heck out of me. When I applied to
> university, I applied for the journalism and psychology programs.
>
> The opposite characteristics of each of the traits I listed are, in
> order, extroverted, sensing, thinking, and judging. I'd bet a case of
> beer that you'd register as a judging preference.
That's fine Nik, categorise me if it pleases you. Tell me how I think and
what I feel and how deeply upset I am and hurting and lacking the strength
to speak up for what I believe, and how linear, abstract, whatever I am.
What do I eat for breakfast then....I bet you even know that don't you?
what do I look like, based on your "all knowing psychology"?
>
> This is all probably gibberish to you. Maybe not.
No, not really, somewhat predicatable though. I'm sorry, I don't want to
fight with you here, but you do a rather good job at insulting people. I
realise by your continual attempts at trying to make everyone SEE as you do,
that you really don't get it.
Kristina.
Galactor5
intended to say- having the inclination to attempt " to see things from
everyone's perspective". Ability could refer to empathize. i could be wrong.
Kristina
Galactor5 <gala...@aol.com> wrote in message
news:19991102015759...@ng-fi1.aol.com...
> he may have been a little careless to phrase that correctly and originally
> intended to say- having the inclination to attempt " to see things from
> everyone's perspective". Ability could refer to empathize. i could be
wrong.
No, Nik is rather specific with his wording, i think he truly believes that
he has an "ability" to see everyone's perspective, but as Brandon says, it
really makes no sense. I would personally kill myself (I think I would
anyway) in a second if I had the ability to see through everyone with such
crystal clear precision... there would be no mystery in life, and what fun
is that....
Nik, were you indeed careless with your wording my love?
Kristina.
Nikolaus Maack
>No, not really, somewhat predicatable though. I'm sorry, I don't want to
>fight with you here, but you do a rather good job at insulting people.
I really wasn't trying to start a fight in my last post. Quite the
opposite, I'm trying to find some middle ground between us. I wasn't
even trying to analyse or define you or determine what you eat for
breakfast. I was just trying to suggest why we are different from one
another and why this causes conflict. That's it.
>I
>realise by your continual attempts at trying to make everyone SEE as you do,
>that you really don't get it.
I don't care if people see like me or not. That's not my goal at all.
Like everyone else, I'm throwing ideas and experiences out there,
trying to share, trying to talk. That's it.
Nikolaus Maack
>This is a contradiction. How can someone claim to know everything yet
>question everything simultaneously?
The person who thinks they know everything questions questions
everything other people say and do, as somehow being innacurate.
> > >>Human beings like to think they know almost everything.
>> This is a psychological fact.
>
>No Nik, its a sociological generalization. You're generalizing groups of
>people again.
Let me rephrase and say it in words that might not piss you off as
much: we all think we know more than we do. We over-estimate our own
intelligence on a regular basis. We have to. It's necessary. 70% of
all drivers think they are excellent drivers. This sort of thing is
rife in the world. And in ourselves.
I said:
> > Human beings like to think they know everything. Each of us likes to
>> think of ourselves as "special". We aren't, of course, except that we
>> are "us". We treasure our own persons to the point where we can't
>> judge ourselves clearly. Psychological fact.
Brandon:
>Sociological generization. Damn it. I thought you were a psych major, not a
>sociology major?
This is, actually, from a social psychology.
Nikolaus Maack
>he may have been a little careless to phrase that correctly and originally
>intended to say- having the inclination to attempt " to see things from
>everyone's perspective". Ability could refer to empathize. i could be wrong.
Yes, that's what I meant.
Nikolaus Maack
>Myers-Briggs test is that it attempts to cement a mask onto our fluxing
>personality. You are only an INFP the moment you take the test, tommorrow
>you're not.
That's one particular perception of it. It measures our tendencies,
our biases. It doesn't have to be read as carved in stone.
>In my late teens I took the test three times with three different results.
>[don't remember the results now]
Teenage years are especially prone to wackiness. It's when most of us
are shaping our identity. Now that you're an adult, you might
consider trying it another time.
Nikolaus Maack
>what the hell is a "psychological fact"?
There are many studies on the subject I'm discussing -- the trend in
people to assume they know more than they do, to assume they are more
intelligent than they actually are, luckier than other people. We
always judge ourselves slightly better than we are. We assume we know
more than we do. There are enough studies on this subject matter that
I would say it approaches the level of "fact", if you can allow
yourself to believe in such things. Ordinarily I can't, but here, I'm
quite willing.
>shit, i can't think of anything more likely to induce coma than to _want_ to
>know everything, nor anything more tragically boring than to actually _know_
>everything.
My wording is sloppy. Consider the paragraph above and apply the
material to yourself. Do you show these traits?
(Please, God-like-mythological-entity-in-the-portion-of-my-
psychological-make-up-that-I-refer-to-as-my-subconscious, please don't
make me go out and do research and present to these people a
well-crafted essay on this subject matter.)
Nikolaus Maack
>I took a
>Minnesota Multiphasic Test once and received a "false positive" which means
>it doesn't measure me accurately; I had to take another test that was
>equally as pointless. IQ tests, personality profiles, etc etc yadda yadda
>yadda. True crap.
What you seem to be saying in the above is that they don't work for
you, personally, so they are of no value to anyone.
>> According to some of the stuff I've read, INFPs want to >communicate on an
>a one-on-one level, about personal >details, and personal matters.
>
>How quaint: when are you going to do this?
How many times have I ragged you out for only talking about theory,
and never your personal experience? Dale -- I've been trying to do
communicate on one-on-one level, about personal experiences and
personal matters since the first day I arrived in this newsgroup.
>> We also have the annoying ability of seeing the world from
>> everyone's perspective.
>
>??? You're deluding yourself, if you think this is either a positive trait
>or a descrition of you.
*sigh*
I keep using words, that, to me, make perfect sense, but eveyone else
seems to leap on them, screaming in rage, unable to decipher them,
seeing them as illogical and imprecise. INFPs are prone to
"understanding" everyone else's position. That is, if there's a fight
between two people, we can empathize with both parties. We can "see
things from their perspective". We can identify with both sides. We
are the empathy people.
Yes, Dale, believe it or not, I am a sensitive, empathetic, caring
individual.
>Your sentimentality and self-pity is quite nauseating.
Your inability to understand me, or cut me some slack, is quite
tiresome.
Kristina
> "Kristina" <bu...@start.com.au> wrote:
> >No, not really, somewhat predicatable though. I'm sorry, I don't want to
> >fight with you here, but you do a rather good job at insulting people.
>
> opposite, I'm trying to find some middle ground between us. I wasn't
> even trying to analyse or define you or determine what you eat for
> breakfast. I was just trying to suggest why we are different from one
> another and why this causes conflict. That's it.
Okay Nik...l will try to find this middle ground then...
Yes, we are all different to one another, each and every one of us, there is
no such thing as all people thinking completely alike, the way we come
together is by sharing and not only that but by listening, so I will try and
listen...aside from that, I cannot tell you anything else.
Kristina.
Michael Voytinsky
"dale houstman" <dm...@mindspring.com> wrote:
> Of course, since Nik isn't a surrealist
Well, Nik certainly is not a realist, so he has to be a surrealist,
right?
Perhaps you should define "surrealist".
> If you have ever read any surrealist writing, you will see that on
> the contrary doubt crop up quite readily.
Except that your doubt is very snide and does not permit any other form
of doubt. Anyone who does not doubt in the same way you do is not "a
surrealist".
This is not doubt at all - your form of surrealism is just as
doctrinaire as Catholicism, and you do not even serve wine during the
services.
> Maybe the mooks and proto-monkeys you hang around with in Ottawa
> think this way, but very few of the people I know
> are this arrogant and insipid. This is really just more of your
> awkward philistine attitude trying to disguise itself as intelligence.
Translation: We do not have all the answers! Anyone who disagrees
with us is obviously a philistine proto-monkey.
> You keep answering as though you were a surrealist, and as if you had
> any intellectual authority
How does a surrealist acquire this intellectual authority?
> you are a philistine
This is at least the third time you used this term, in this message
alone. Can I respectfully suggest that you procure yourself a
thesaurus?
--
Michael Voytinsky
Ottawa Ontario Canada
http://www.igs.net/~michaelv
Sent via Deja.com http://www.deja.com/
Before you buy.
Michael Voytinsky
"Brandon J. Freels" <fre...@teleport.com> wrote:
> This is a contradiction. How can someone claim to know everything yet
> question everything simultaneously?
This is very easy to do. Question everything, but with a superior
air. Show lots of disdain for anyone does not not question
everything. It helps if you wear black and attend open-mike poetry
readings.
Michael Voytinsky
Michael Voytinsky
ac...@freenet.carleton.ca (Nikolaus Maack) wrote:
> This is about as flakey as a human being can get. Statistically
> speaking, most INFPs end up being journalists or therapists.
> When I found this out, it spooked the heck out of me.
The journalists part is spooky, as it should be. The nature of
journalists' work requires dealing with facts and separating facts from
fiction. It often require precision and analytical skills.
Yet to an INFP the statement "70% of experts agree on X" is not,
intrinsically, painful. If it can be used in an interesting,
easthetically pleasing way, so be it. To me (an INTP) this statement
should be slowly tortured to death with red-hot pokers.
In your case, you could probably do an excellent job doing Dave Barry
style humorous reporting. As a serious journalist you could be as
prone to spreading outright disinformation as most other journalists.
Paul Whitehead
<ac...@freenet.carleton.ca> writes
>"Kristina" <bu...@start.com.au> wrote:
>>No, not really, somewhat predicatable though. I'm sorry, I don't want to
>>fight with you here, but you do a rather good job at insulting people.
>
>opposite, I'm trying to find some middle ground between us. I wasn't
>even trying to analyse or define you or determine what you eat for
>breakfast.
> I was just trying to suggest why we are different from one
>another and why this causes conflict. That's it.
>
An original idea behind surrealism is that the people involved got
creative and other sparks from the conflict between each other.
<snip>
P.
barrett john erickson
> "barrett john erickson" <bar...@magneticfields.org> wrote:
> >what the hell is a "psychological fact"?
>
> There are many studies on the subject I'm discussing -- the trend in
> people to assume they know more than they do, to assume they are more
> intelligent than they actually are, luckier than other people. We
> always judge ourselves slightly better than we are. We assume we know
> more than we do. There are enough studies on this subject matter that
> I would say it approaches the level of "fact", if you can allow
> yourself to believe in such things. Ordinarily I can't, but here, I'm
> quite willing.
>
> >shit, i can't think of anything more likely to induce coma than to _want_
to
> >know everything, nor anything more tragically boring than to actually
_know_
> >everything.
>
> My wording is sloppy. Consider the paragraph above and apply the
> material to yourself. Do you show these traits?
i don't really want to get into an epistemological discussion with you, but
your observations (and the "many studies") are premised on a "given" reality
against which "knowledge" can be measured. i reject this premise for
reasons i've outlined before (reality-as-experienced is enacted, not
encountered).
that isn't the only thing that makes your argument unconvincing (as others
have shown), but more to your point:
no, Nik, although i'm sure you (and probably everyone else here) see me this
way, your description doesn't reflect my process in the least.
i'm 49 years old, Nik. i've thought about some things extensively and gone
through a lot of discussions on these subjects. been there, considered
that, bored stiff by the same old shit.
but this doesn't make me think i "know more than i know" -- it just makes me
impatient and humorless when dealing with those unwilling or unable to
participate in explorations of far more interesting perspectives, and
hostile to those who impermeably promote acquired perspectives i've long
since rejected and they never question.
as i said before, "[admitting we know nothing] is such a banal observation
that it has no mass at all among those who see living as a process of
creative exploration."
just a few years ago, when i first encountered and came to understand the
theory and implications of enactive cognition and how it fit with my
experience, _my entire world-view was inverted_.
i actively seek such transformations, hoping they will be just that total,
and i expect the same experimental volatility from others.
what matters to me is how easily someone can shed "what they know" when
their experience demands it.
dale houstman
Michael Voytinsky <mich...@igs.net> wrote in message
news:7vmtit$vuj$1...@nnrp1.deja.com...
> In article <7vjc6v$ahb$1...@nntp3.atl.mindspring.net>,
> "dale houstman" <dm...@mindspring.com> wrote:
>
> > Of course, since Nik isn't a surrealist
>
> Well, Nik certainly is not a realist, so he has to be a >surrealist,
right?
No. Surrealism does not mean "not realism" but "superrealism" and one of the
rallying calls of the movement has always been "more realism." What
surrealists are after is to stop those who would exploit and corrupt realism
to the point that we (as those redefined humans "consumers") are now
purchasing and frantically chasing a willfully limited "brand" of realism.
Such blither as "EVERYTHING'S TRUE!" (which Nik, since he continues to argue
points and feel wounded by disagreements, does not in actuality believe: as
if any sane human could) is in no way a key to whatever "benefits" might
accrue from surrealist activity. Surrealism, for all of its surface
eccentricity, has a meta-scientific basis, it believes that there is a
"reality" outside our own perceptions of it, and believes that the
imagination is one of the senses that help us in apprehending it.
> Perhaps you should define "surrealist".
Truthfully, on a surrealist ng this is too basic a query, akin to asking
"what is carpentry?" on a carpentry ng: you might read "The Manifestos of
Surrealism" by Breton for what is essentially the beginning point of
definition. Suffice to say that surrealism is NOT "chaotic nonsense" or
"vague mysticisms" but an offspring (to some degree) of Romanticism, which
sought to wrest imaginative power back from the deities and restore it to
man, its proper "keeper." At its core are the ideals of automatism (a sort
of "velocity of transcription" aiming to do an end-run around cultural
tics), and collaboration, which aims to overcome the "crisis of the ego" and
restore creative expression to all. At the same time, surrealism is NOT
merely an art movement, as any reading of its history will reveal: it has a
(sometimes unfortunate) political dimension, and a more fruitful
philosophical dimension.
As for the rest of your letter, most of it is irrelevant to the question. My
use of the word "philistine" is specific and arises from previous
conversations. It is a perfect fit, and (given the opportunity) I will use
it as many times as I wish. Or do you wish to maintain that your word usage
is the only viable path?
As for Nik: he has a long history of making obviously antithetical
statements vis a vis surrealism. All delineated forums have a limitation to
their "membership" as such: it is not arrogant for an ice cream man to
expect another man calling himself an ice cream man to sell ice cream. Nik
has made it abundantly that he believes surrealism can contain (for one
instance) Tao: since ALL surrealist literature makes the repeated point of
its anti-religiosity, and since (in fact) this stance is central to
surrealism's anti-authoritarian position, it is not MY definition, but THE
definition. I do not know precisely why it is so difficult to understand the
point that movements exist, and receive distnict nomenclature, for a reason:
they are here for a purpose. That this purpose may change is obvious and
welcomed, but just as Christianity cannot accept Satan as its new Godhead
without irreparable damage to its purpose (whatever that might be),
surrealism cannot accept mindless blither and new age mysticisms. Nik
exhibits strong traits of both. Nobody is making (or can make) him leave
simply based on this truth, but I reserve to myself the right to disagree
with his mishandling of the term. If you find this beyond the pale, you are
more than welcome to join the argument.
DMH
dale houstman
> In article <_EpT3.15639$C7.7...@news1.teleport.com>,
> "Brandon J. Freels" <fre...@teleport.com> wrote:
>
> > This is a contradiction. How can someone claim to know everything yet
> > question everything simultaneously?
>
> This is very easy to do. Question everything, but with a >superior air.
Show lots of disdain for anyone does not not >question everything. It helps
if you wear black and attend >open-mike poetry readings.
Your last comment probably describes Nik better than anyone else here: I
really avoid poetry readings as a rule. Nik has made quite a stink about his
"little art projects." You appear to be talking to the wrong end of this
discussion, and with the same rather pathetic generalizations exhibited so
proudly by Nik. In fact, it is you who carries the greatest air of disdain
and superiority here.
And really, since Nik claims (repeatedly) that "EVERYTHING IS TRUE!!!" it is
he who must be claiming to have the answers to all the questions.
I suggest you debate him.
DMH
>
el...@concentric.net
> > > ("loose" is a common typo: almost pandemic...)
> >
> > yes, i heard this on the noose.
>
> You have hit it on the noose...
You silly goose on the loose
no moose in a noose
would choose a papoose
in the calaboose.
But in a caboose
a mongoose may roose
your burnoose
before you vamoose.
Nikolaus Maack
"dale houstman" <dm...@mindspring.com> wrote:
>Nik
>has made it abundantly that he believes surrealism can contain (for one
>instance) Tao: since ALL surrealist literature makes the repeated point of
>its anti-religiosity,
I've mentioned before that taoism (and buddhism) are seen by many as a
philosophy and not a religion. Yes, there are *religious* taoists and
buddhists, but there are also non-religious types. As I mentioned in
a previous posting, many think of taoism as the "religion" of
scientists, as it is a philosophy of process and form and unity of
movement, not a philosophy of GOD. Everything has a pattern to it, a
flow. No extreme lasts, either good or bad. Everything returns to
the centre. That is, the way the universe moves, in and of itself, is
patterned and "sacred".
Taoist awe of the universe is the same awe of the scientists who sees
that there is a perfection and a precision to the way the universe
operates.
I'm not trying to convert anyone here. Just trying to explain that
you're misrepresenting taoism if you think of it as just another
"religion" that surrealism has to crush and/or avoid.
>surrealism cannot accept mindless blither and new age mysticisms.
It accepts mindless blather (blither?) everyday. Or perhaps your
mechanical donkey's interface is mistuned, aligned to a dysfunctional
avocado that you can only see when your x-ray glasses are inserted
rectally?
Nikolaus Maack
>In your case, you could probably do an excellent job doing Dave Barry
>style humorous reporting. As a serious journalist you could be as
>prone to spreading outright disinformation as most other journalists.
Or, more likely, I'd be suited for the sort of reporting of an event,
where what happened and the flavour of the event is captured. That's
what I excel at. I would avoid the statistics stuff. In my mind,
misuse of stats is the realm of the grumpy editorialists.
Nikolaus Maack
>i don't really want to get into an epistemological discussion with you, but
>your observations (and the "many studies") are premised on a "given" reality
>against which "knowledge" can be measured. i reject this premise for
>reasons i've outlined before (reality-as-experienced is enacted, not
>encountered).
I have a buddhist friend who is a solipsist. He firmly believes he is
the centre of the universe, and if you get into a debate with him, he
will argue that way -- "If I don't experience it, it's not there."
However, if you twist his arm long enough, he will admit that there
are "different levels" of thinking. One is that he is the centre of
the universe. Another is that maybe someone can actually study the
world and provide some interesting statistical analysis that may prove
useful to him.
Do you not operate on different levels, and stay within an "enacted"
model all the time? Does this mean that say, if you read a study
where 100 people where questioned, and certain results came up,
regarding human psychology, you wouldn't accept it as potentially
useful information?
I myself play on a number of levels. Sometimes I walk through life
looking for messages from the universe. Everything is heavy with
meaning. On other days, this is tiring, and I walk through life where
the mundane events around me *aren't* messages, but simply mundane
events.
But back to the idea of psychological studies. Are you familiar with
David Milgram's fascinating experiments on authority? He showed that
people continued electrocuting the person in the next room, because a
man in a white lab coat said, "The experiment must continue." This is
incredibly interesting information. It means that most people, given
a person of reasonable authority, would do as the nice policeman says,
and kill other people. Do you dismiss this study because you didn't
"enact" it?
Do you assume you yourself don't have these qualities within you
because you are "enlightened" or somehow different from others? I
have to conclude that if I were in a similar situation to the people
in Milgram's study, I might electrocute people to death. There's no
way for me to really know without being there. I'd like to think I'd
stand up to authority, but I can't be sure.
I'm not trying to insult you. I'm just trying to understand what
you're saying.
>that isn't the only thing that makes your argument unconvincing
The problem is they are taking a broadly defined psychological truth
-- "people are prone to assuming their own intelligence is higher than
it actually is" -- and applying it to themselves, and growling, "I'm
not like that! I am an accurate judge of myself!"
Perhaps they are. There is no way for us to tell. However,
psychological studies have shown that most people *are* prone to
assuming they are smarter, luckier, and better drivers than everyone
else. It therefore seems reasonable to conclude that I myself, and
most of the people I encounter, behave in this manner.
(How can we *know* if we are accurate judges of ourselves, anyway?
You can't determine how accurate your own thinking is, just by
thinking about it.)
Where's the flaw in this line of thinking? If you have another
interpretation of the above, I'd like to hear it.
Nikolaus Maack
>You silly goose on the loose
>no moose in a noose
>would choose a papoose
>in the calaboose.
Of what oose is my friend Broose?
He roose the day
he chopped down a sproose.
Why?
Just becoose.
Brandon J. Freels
> The person who thinks they know everything questions questions
> everything other people say and do, as somehow being innacurate.
But a person who thinks they know everything would have no need to question
anything including what other people say. They would just *know*.
> we all think we know more than we do. We over-estimate our own
> intelligence on a regular basis.
"We all..." Your generalizing a bit...
So if I think I don't know anything, then in actuality I know less than what
I think I don't know which is less than anything?
70% of the drivers who think they're good drivers are good drivers. 70% of
the pseudo- *powers* that pretend to determine what a good or bad driver
*is* think that the 70% of drivers who think they're good drivers are wrong.
Intelligence is subjective. You can't over or under-estimate it. However,
you can over or under-estimate your *ability* to do something, like how high
you can jump.
> This is, actually, from a social psychology.
Can you explain, again, the difference between social psychology and
sociology?
Brandon J. Freels
> How many times have I ragged you out for only talking about theory,
> and never your personal experience? Dale -- I've been trying to do
> communicate on one-on-one level, about personal experiences and
> personal matters since the first day I arrived in this newsgroup.
Hey, Nik. Why don't you stop talking about your theory [which is about how
people should stop talking about theories]?
> I keep using words, that, to me, make perfect sense, but eveyone else
> seems to leap on them, screaming in rage, unable to decipher them,
> seeing them as illogical and imprecise.
We're trying to help you...
> Yes, Dale, believe it or not, I am a sensitive, empathetic, caring
> individual.
YOU LIE!
PIG!
Brandon J. Freels
> There are many studies on the subject I'm discussing -- the trend in
> people to assume they know more than they do, to assume they are more
> intelligent than they actually are, luckier than other people. We
> always judge ourselves slightly better than we are. We assume we know
> more than we do. There are enough studies on this subject matter that
> I would say it approaches the level of "fact", if you can allow
> yourself to believe in such things. Ordinarily I can't, but here, I'm
> quite willing.
Nik. You're assuming that you know more than you do.
> (Please, God-like-mythological-entity-in-the-portion-of-my-
> psychological-make-up-that-I-refer-to-as-my-subconscious, please don't
> make me go out and do research and present to these people a
> well-crafted essay on this subject matter.)
I've already flunked you. There's little hope now.
You might as well drop the course.
Brandon J. Freels
> Perhaps you should define "surrealist".
A Surrealist is someone who experiences Surrealism.
Here is my *working* definition of Surrealism [its a bit wordy at the
beginning]:
The actions of the brain's personnel that conceives, desires, selects,
perceives, and the like, without the interference of external constraints,
such as utilitarianism, rationalism, aestheticism, and so on, to create an
untainted awareness of existence which is the most complete experience of
reality.
*****
Some links:
http://home.cdsnet.net/~anubsrrl/manifest.html
http://www-e815.fnal.gov/~romosan/surrealism.html
Brandon J. Freels
> I've mentioned before that taoism (and buddhism) are seen by many as a
> philosophy and not a religion.
Buddhism is the eastern equivalent of Christianity.
The four noble truths of Buddhism are:
1. Life is suffer
2. Suffering is caused by desire
3. Stop the desire
4. Follow the 8-fold path [the 8 fold path is a list of morals similar to
the ten commandments].
By following the four noble truths you can break the chain of reincarnation
[hell] and get to nirvana [heaven].
> Everything has a pattern to it, a flow ...
You're making an assumtion that the universe has a design.
http://skepdic.com/design.html
> I'm not trying to convert anyone here. Just trying to explain that
> you're misrepresenting taoism if you think of it as just another
> "religion" that surrealism has to crush and/or avoid.
It is. You're understanding of Taoism is very selective. The religion
developed to eventually embody 200,000 dieties [or was it 200,000,0000?].
You're not going to make me dig up my East Asia Civilization textbook are
you?
Taoism is a religion for submissive sophists.
Brandon J. Freels
Brandon J. Freels
> This is very easy to do. Question everything, but with a superior
> air. Show lots of disdain for anyone does not not question
> everything.
Er. Someone who is questioning everything is in such a drastic position that
for them to think that they know everything is impossible. They may think
that they do not know anything except that others don't know anything
either. That sounds more logical.
> It helps if you wear black
Yep.
> and attend open-mike poetry readings.
Nope.
dale houstman
> One quick point...
>
>
> I've mentioned before that taoism (and buddhism) are seen >by many as a
philosophy and not a religion.
Surely, but Buddhism's general thrust is one (like most religions) of
containing or diverting desire. While I agree that Buddhism, as religions
go, is relatively benign, I have read too much about it, and seen its
function in too many lives to allow its applicability to surrealism, which
is (for better or worse) a system for releasing desire. It isn't even a
matter of my "disliking" religion per se, as I appreciate the various forms
as expressions of human imagination, although (I believe) regretfully
disassociated ones. Thus, I rather applaud Blake's undeniable religious
mysticism, which (unlike so much "Everything is True" blither and radical
Baptist conservatism) celebrates human desire and revolutionary activity in
works of unsurpassed beauty. On the other hand I can appreciate (without
necessarily agrreing with) St. Augustine's intellectual prowess in his
search for self in the blinding light of God. And so on: I mean ancient
myths were originally the stuff of sacred worship (although the later Greeks
took rather a laconic stance vis a vis these gods, and began the process of
installing them in psychology rather than religion). Myth-making is a high
function of the human and should be celebrated wherever it occurs, but this
does not entail procuring the beliefs themselves as a whole cloth. As I have
said, surrealism's interest in the sacred is almost always more along the
lines of archaeological and aesthetic.
> a previous posting, many think of taoism as the "religion" of
> scientists, as it is a philosophy of process and form and >unity of
movement, not a philosophy of GOD. Everything >has a pattern to it, a flow.
No extreme lasts, either good or >bad. Everything returns to the centre.
That is, the way the >universe moves, in and of itself, is
> patterned and "sacred".
Yet, contrarily, I would say that even the earliest humans noticed
"patterns" and these were deified; in any event the observations came first.
"Science" (in its nascent form of physical observation) predates
religiosity. One first notes that the seasons repeat, and then this pattern
is filled with myth.
> I'm not trying to convert anyone here. Just trying to explain >that
you're misrepresenting taoism if you think of it as just >another "religion"
that surrealism has to crush and/or avoid.
It isn't a matter of such blunt ineptitudes as "crushing" or "avoiding." As
I say, surrealism desires to celebrate that imaginative field that predates
the merely sacred. Tao, no matter how benign in its attitudes, still remains
a disguise of this field. As such, it is to be investigated, its forms
appreciated as one more facet of the underlying patterns of human
imagination. I have no problem with this, and your consistent reduction of a
complex intellectual stance to mere "religophobia" is distressing, and is
just another of your clumsy armatures that prevent us from reaching any
point of communion. In other words, although I come far enough to appreciate
Tao as a form, you cannot come far enough to appreciate that appreciation:
you continue to repeat the same arguments again and again.
surrealism cannot accept mindless blither and new age mysticisms.
>
> It accepts mindless blather (blither?) everyday.
Why do you question my use of the variant "blither"? EVERYTHING IS TRUE!
> Or perhaps >your mechanical donkey's interface is >mistuned, aligned to a
>dysfunctional avocado that you can >only see when your x->ray glasses are
inserted rectally?
Typically inept wordplay that barely disguises your real intent.
DMH
Fascinan
Don't bring me down....Broooooose
Don't bring me down......Broooose
Brandon J. Freels
> On the other hand I can appreciate (without
> necessarily agrreing with) St. Augustine's intellectual prowess in his
> search for self in the blinding light of God. And so on
I always liked Martin Luther for his reduction of the hierarchy created by
Roman Catholic Church [pope, bishop, priest, etc] to a simple connection
between god and man. The only problem is that he forgot to erase god as
well.
Brandon J. Freels
Kristina wrote:
> This is just unbelievable...what are you talking about? ... Why the hell
do I care if I
> would stand up to authority and pour over this question for all eternity?
... Why do you > need an "instructional guide" to the rest of your life?
I believe Nik's subject turn into the discussion of David Milgram was, what
is called in the world of philosophy, a straw man. I could be wrong, but it
seems that Nik, unable to argue with Barrett on the original subject, must
change the subject to attack Barrett. Normally the straw man technique deals
with attacking the individuals weakest position, but since Barrett has not
stated anything on the new subject it is at this point his weakest position
[non-existent].
Possible Nik should study these fallacies and try avoiding them in his
arguments: changing the subject, hasty generalizations, unrepresentitive
sample, slothful induction, category errors, inconsistency, undistributed
middle, illicit major and minor, at
http://www.intrepidsoftware.com/fallacy/toc.htm
dale houstman
Brandon J. Freels <fre...@teleport.com> wrote in message
news:JVMT3.17734$C7.7...@news1.teleport.com...
Oh well, close but no cigar. But Martin Luther was a horrid little bug: I
think anyone who could say (as he did) that "Dreams are liars; you shit in
your bed - that's true" is not to be trusted with the human spirit in any
form. It bespeaks a certain sick reductionism...
DMH
dale houstman
Kristina <bu...@start.com.au> wrote in message
news:7vobo8$2oa$1...@the-fly.zip.com.au...
> barrett john erickson <bar...@magneticfields.org> wrote in message
> news:WlET3.1169
>
>
> ......you're divine Barrett. I don't think you sloppy in your wording.
His divinity remains up in the air. And though his wording is not sloppy, I
see him from time to time, and he dresses like a drunken yak.
DMH
Kristina
> "barrett john erickson" <bar...@magneticfields.org> wrote:
> >what the hell is a "psychological fact"?
>
> people to assume they know more than they do, to assume they are more
> intelligent than they actually are, luckier than other people. We
> always judge ourselves slightly better than we are.
Okay, although I am sure there are people who do try and convince
others/themselves that they know more than they do, you get yourself in
trouble Nik with the way you generalise. You say here quote:
"we always judge ourselves slightly better than we are"....well hell that's
news to me, i'm rather good at self-depreciation. (look I'm teasing
although there is some truth in that for me)....but clearly if you go around
making gross generalisations people are going to read it as SUCH. We can't
see into your mind, therefore what you write it what is responded to.
> We assume we know > more than we do.
No this is not true either, again you're generalising, and if you don't
necessarily believe the above line you wrote as fact, then please be more
specific. I can't see inside your head, so when you make broad sweeping
statements, I will question and disagree (if I feel like it).
> There are enough studies on this subject matter that
> I would say it approaches the level of "fact", if you can allow
> yourself to believe in such things. Ordinarily I can't, but here, I'm
> quite willing.
Fact, fiction, truth, rubbish, lies, the unknowm all of it. One persons
belief of fact is not necessarily another persons. There are basic facts
like we need air, etc and food...but when you speak of "psychological fact"
you are stating that as your "belief system" (in this case). I might just
think it's a load of hoo-hah. (i don't necessarily think that of psychology)
Basically as far as I'm concerned, psychology is as arguable and debatable
as many other areas...therefore I'm less willing to believe that there is
kust ONE consistent truth in it. That's my personal view on psychology. It
is a moving/breathing area, so how can there really be just one fact on it.
> >shit, i can't think of anything more likely to induce coma than to _want_
to
> >know everything, nor anything more tragically boring than to actually
_know_
> >everything.
>
> My wording is sloppy. Consider the paragraph above and apply the
> material to yourself. Do you show these traits?
>
> (Please, God-like-mythological-entity-in-the-portion-of-my-
> psychological-make-up-that-I-refer-to-as-my-subconscious, please don't
> make me go out and do research and present to these people a
> well-crafted essay on this subject matter.)
Don't do this Nik...I just said in an earlier post that I will try and
listen (harder) to what you are saying, BUT, fuck me dead! why do you have
this feeling that you have to PROVE something to (quote "these people")....I
don't want to read your essay on the subject matter if it is being force fed
me as I feel you are doing here...
I'm going to bed now, I've had enough...
Kristina.
Kristina
> "barrett john erickson" <bar...@magneticfields.org> wrote:
> >i don't really want to get into an epistemological discussion with you,
but
> >your observations (and the "many studies") are premised on a "given"
reality
> >against which "knowledge" can be measured. i reject this premise for
> >reasons i've outlined before (reality-as-experienced is enacted, not
> >encountered).
Some of what Nik says:
> Do you not operate on different levels, and stay within an "enacted"
> model all the time? Does this mean that say, if you read a study
> where 100 people where questioned, and certain results came up,
> regarding human psychology, you wouldn't accept it as potentially
> useful information?
Potentially useful information, or even interesting/debatable does not
constitute it as automatically FACT or truth however, but more importantly
for me: it does not mean that the infomation is in a state of solid
matter/concrete unmovable form. There are few things in life that I see as
unyeilding.
> But back to the idea of psychological studies. Are you familiar with
> David Milgram's fascinating experiments on authority? He showed that
> people continued electrocuting the person in the next room, because a
> man in a white lab coat said, "The experiment must continue." This is
> incredibly interesting information. It means that most people, given
> a person of reasonable authority, would do as the nice policeman says,
> and kill other people. Do you dismiss this study because you didn't
> "enact" it?
Nik, why is this so important to you. If I just walked into this newsgroup
and read your posts, i'd say that you are keen on destroying the
idea/concept that life, experiences, events are movable and shifting, that
there are an incredible amount of possible outcomes, etc. It's like you are
"anti-surreal"....... (hey, okay don't pick on my lack of vocabulary this
time of morning). I don't know if you identify as being a surrealist,
etc...but that's the best way for me to demonstrate for the present time in
this context.
>
> Do you assume you yourself don't have these qualities within you
> because you are "enlightened" or somehow different from others? I
> have to conclude that if I were in a similar situation to the people
> in Milgram's study, I might electrocute people to death. There's no
> way for me to really know without being there. I'd like to think I'd
> stand up to authority, but I can't be sure.
This is just unbelievable...what are you talking about? It is like you are
trying so hard to go against everything that this newsgroup encourages, and
then you get upset when people question your motives, way of thinking, ideas
on life....etc. Why the hell do I care if I would stand up to authority and
pour over this question for all eternity? I really don't, and I don't
really need to know what the outcome would be if I were in that position.
Why do you need an "instructional guide" to the rest of your life?
> The problem is they are taking a broadly defined psychological truth
> -- "people are prone to assuming their own intelligence is higher than
> it actually is" -- and applying it to themselves, and growling, "I'm
> not like that! I am an accurate judge of myself!"
Again, the same dramatic sweeping drandiose statements...
> Perhaps they are. There is no way for us to tell. However,
> psychological studies have shown that most people *are* prone to
> assuming they are smarter, luckier, and better drivers than everyone
> else. It therefore seems reasonable to conclude that I myself, and
> most of the people I encounter, behave in this manner.
but at the end of the day, is this really an important thing to us. This is
fucking basic knowledge that there are people with all sorts of different
perceptions of who they are, levels of awareness, and they are all inifinity
different and on many levels, embodying many belief systems and approaches
to the inner/outer world....whatever, and whichever. I can go outside and
talk to my neighbour and think she is sensastionally endearing..., but is it
important for me to "u-n-d-e-r-s-t-a-n-d" EVERYTHING about her? No, I
rather prefer her quirky mysterious ways, and how she changes the subjects
really quickly and speaks too fast, and her alarmingly charming way of
pointing out what she finds appealing...these are the things I'd rather
focus on, and it is just how I SEE things. It is not a concious A-Z of
instructional features mapped out on my forearm telling me what to do, and
what next....I just enjoy in the unknown, and get a buzz out of that.
>
> (How can we *know* if we are accurate judges of ourselves, anyway?
> You can't determine how accurate your own thinking is, just by
> thinking about it.)
Who gives a fuck! I know myself better than anyone else as much as I do,
and that is good with me, and I have certain ideas and judgements and
preferences in life, and they are a part of who I am. I am not going to
waste my goddam time thinking sitting in my armchair, finger to forehead
pondering "oh how well do I really know myself? Am I real? Why is life
like this for ME?"..........blah blah blah.
I know through experiences and my own actions towards myself and others, who
i am, and when I experience something NEW be that confronting in a light or
more profoundly deeper sense, I (without telling myself) get something new
from that whole experience. Being alive is a marvellous adventure, stop
putting the brakes on Nik...you are not driving to a pre-determined
destination. I'm sure you can't tell me what is going to happen to you
three days from now, or what you are going to feel, etc..so why try and plan
it all, when the effort is a useless, time consuming excuse for really
Living.
>
> Where's the flaw in this line of thinking? If you have another
> interpretation of the above, I'd like to hear it.
That was my interpretation...I'm sure there is more, but that will do.
Summarised.
Kristina
news:WlET3.1169
> no, Nik, although i'm sure you (and probably everyone else here) see me
this
> way, your description doesn't reflect my process in the least.
......you're divine Barrett. I don't think you sloppy in your wording.
Kristina.
Kristina
> > > David Milgram's
> Kristina wrote:
> do I care if I
> > would stand up to authority and pour over this question for all
eternity?
>
> I believe Nik's subject turn into the discussion of David Milgram was,
what
> is called in the world of philosophy, a straw man. I could be wrong, but
it
> seems that Nik, unable to argue with Barrett on the original subject, must
> change the subject to attack Barrett. Normally the straw man technique
deals
> with attacking the individuals weakest position, but since Barrett has not
> stated anything on the new subject it is at this point his weakest
position
> [non-existent].
I have questioned the same thing myself. (And like you I could be wrong as
well).
Needless to say, this is not a very efficient way of communicating. I
sometimes think the whole excercise is non-existent of any real
substance...Brandon, I agree with you basically. Hey anything is possbile
right? And of course everything is entirely everything too... : )
Kristina.
Michael Voytinsky
"dale houstman" <dm...@mindspring.com> wrote:
> What surrealists are after is to stop those who would exploit and
> corrupt realism to the point that we (as those redefined humans
> "consumers")
Consumerism and anti-consumerism were not part of the culture when
surrealism first came out - so your definition has to be excessively
narrow.
I took a look on the web, searching for keywords "surrealist manifestos
breton" - and did not see anything matching your view of surrealism.
The definitions were many and varied, but the common theme was the
notion that rationality imposes excessive limits on the imagination.
This is what Nik has been saying here.
> My use of the word "philistine" is specific and arises from previous
> conversations. It is a perfect fit, and (given the opportunity) I
> will use it as many times as I wish.
Using the same word repeatedly, even if the word is appropriate, is
poor writing style. The aesthetic effect is unpleasant.
Further, the word "philistine" has been overused. Too often it is used
to describe people who do not consider random splotches of paint on
canvas to be "art", or at least good art.
> Or do you wish to maintain that your word usage is the only viable
> path?
What an odd question! I never said anything about my own word usage,
let alone held it up as an example.
> their "membership" as such: it is not arrogant for an ice cream man to
> expect another man calling himself an ice cream man to sell ice cream
Poor analogy.
What is happening here is more akin to what you can see every day on
newsgroups such as alt.religion.islam - where everyone accuses everyone
else of heresy, and insists that it is their version of Islam that is
the true one.
There is a commonly accepted definition of ice cream - that is why you
see so little argument about it. There does not appear to be a common
definition for surrealism (or Islam).
> instance) Tao: since ALL surrealist literature makes the repeated
> point of its anti-religiosity,
Does a surrealist have to believe EVERYTHING that is stated in the
"surrealist literature"?
> and since (in fact) this stance is central to
> surrealism's anti-authoritarian position,
Being religious and being anti-authoritarian is not mutually exclusive.
> it is not MY definition, but THE definition.
Why do you remind me of the people on alt.religion.islam?
I know. It is because they make exactly the same statements about
their own interpretation of Islam.
--
Michael Voytinsky
Ottawa Ontario Canada
http://www.igs.net/~michaelv
Michael Voytinsky
"Brandon J. Freels" <fre...@teleport.com> wrote:
> Can you explain, again, the difference between social psychology and
> sociology?
Observation:
When people get together for a meal, they tend to eat more then they do
when they are by themselves.
At this point a sociologist would:
Research whether this is true of Western society only. Study eating
habits of different socio-economic groups. Study eating habits of
different genders.
At this point a psychologist would:
Study Alice in a group setting, eating. Compare with Alice, alone,
eathing.
Repeat with Bob, Trent, Carol, etc. Compare the behaviour of these
individuals in group eating settings.
Does this help?
barrett john erickson
news:7vocv3$h7b$1...@nntp5.atl.mindspring.net...
>
I
> see him from time to time, and he dresses like a drunken yak.
actually, i aim for the look of an impoverished demented dingo.
i do, however, talk like a drunken yak.
confusion is understandable.
-- barrett
BLUE FEATHERS #2 is now available
http://www.MagneticFields.org/blue/
bar...@MagneticFields.org
http://www.MagneticFields.org/
==============================================
"Everything tends to make us believe that there exists a
certain point of the mind at which life and death, the real and
the imagined, past and future, the communicable and the
incommunicable, high and low, cease to be perceived as
contradictions."
...André Breton
==============================================
Nikolaus Maack
>is called in the world of philosophy, a straw man. I could be wrong
You are wrong.
What Barrett seemed to be saying was that he puts no weight in
psychological studies, because they don't connect with his concept of
enactive cognition. At least, that's the impression I got. For this
reason I chose a very specific example, Milgram's experiments.
What I want to know is, does Barrett give these studies any weight?
He hasn't personally experienced the events described, but it is
useful information -- both on the level of personal introspection, and
in understanding the people around you.
I figured using a very specific example like this, Barrett could
explain to me what he was trying to say about enactive cognition and
the field of psychology.
C'est tout.
Brandon J. Freels
Nikolaus Maack wrote
> You are wrong.
But I thought you said earlier that EVERYTHING IS RIGHT.
Brandon J. Freels
Michael Voytinsky wrote
> Consumerism and anti-consumerism were not part of the culture when
> surrealism first came out - so your definition has to be excessively
> narrow.
You're obviously Nik's ass cleaner, who knows less of Surrealism than even
Nik.
> I took a look on the web, searching for keywords "surrealist manifestos
> breton" - and did not see anything matching your view of surrealism.
> The definitions were many and varied, but the common theme was the
> notion that rationality imposes excessive limits on the imagination.
This is true, but rationality is not the main focus of the Surrealist
project as it stands today. Rationality is one of many *repressive forces*
that Surrealism sees as its antithesis. Nik feeds off the *repressive
forces* --- shit man, he reads Stephen King and writes slogans! He's right
up the consumerism cunt!
> Using the same word repeatedly, even if the word is appropriate, is
> poor writing style. The aesthetic effect is unpleasant.
Fuck off. Let someone write the way they want to. Isn't that Nik's *theory*?
Afterall, EVERTHING IS RIGHT.
Nikolaus Maack
>forces* --- shit man, he reads Stephen King and writes slogans! He's right
>up the consumerism cunt!
Spleek foo dinga wah-wha puchang ta beek! Ooocha meep meep terdoon
flest bickle stack degoo!
Brandon J. Freels
show you what an idiot you are...
Nikolaus Maack wrote
barrett john erickson
news:7vmtit$vuj$1...@nnrp1.deja.com...
> In article <7vjc6v$ahb$1...@nntp3.atl.mindspring.net>,
> "dale houstman" <dm...@mindspring.com> wrote:
>
> > Of course, since Nik isn't a surrealist
>
> Well, Nik certainly is not a realist, so he has to be a surrealist,
> right?
yeah, that's right. the same way a brick has to be filet mignon because it
certainly isn't meat.
Kristina
news:7vocv3$h7b$1...@nntp5.atl.mindspring.net...
>
> Kristina <bu...@start.com.au> wrote in message
> news:7vobo8$2oa$1...@the-fly.zip.com.au...
> > barrett john erickson <bar...@magneticfields.org> wrote in message
> > news:WlET3.1169
> >
> >
> > ......you're divine Barrett. I don't think you sloppy in your wording.
>
> His divinity remains up in the air. And though his wording is not sloppy,
I
> see him from time to time, and he dresses like a drunken yak.
>
Just as well I'm in Australia then....LOL.
Yes divinity remains up in the air, perhaps where it ought to be...
Kristina.
>
>
Kristina
> "dale houstman" <dm...@mindspring.com> wrote in message
> news:7vocv3$h7b$1...@nntp5.atl.mindspring.net...
> >
> > Kristina <bu...@start.com.au> wrote in message
> > news:7vobo8$2oa$1...@the-fly.zip.com.au...
> > > barrett john erickson <bar...@magneticfields.org> wrote in message
> > > news:WlET3.1169
> > >
> > >
> > > ......you're divine Barrett. I don't think you sloppy in your
wording.
> >
> > His divinity remains up in the air. And though his wording is not
sloppy,
> I
> > see him from time to time, and he dresses like a drunken yak.
>
>
> i do, however, talk like a drunken yak.
>
> confusion is understandable.
Ahhh we can't all be supernova floating inches from stale bread....syrup for
our mermaid minds. I'm most certainly the opposite of a supernova...
Live breathes each morning, but the sparkle in my eye is wrapped up in my
closet full of Picasso's cigarette butts ...I must get out more.
Did you know that demented dingo's and drunken yak's are extinct here?
Shame, there is much need for such beauty...
Captain Zech Mingus (my cat) calls ...I better tip toe into the background
now.
Kristina.
dale houstman
> "Michael Voytinsky" <mich...@igs.net> wrote in message
> news:7vmtit$vuj$1...@nnrp1.deja.com...
> > In article <7vjc6v$ahb$1...@nntp3.atl.mindspring.net>,
> > "dale houstman" <dm...@mindspring.com> wrote:
> >
> > > Of course, since Nik isn't a surrealist
> >
> > Well, Nik certainly is not a realist, so he has to be a surrealist,
> > right?
>
>
> yeah, that's right. the same way a brick has to be filet >mignon because
it certainly isn't meat.
Maybe this explains my digestive problems?
DMH
Leo Sgouros
yeah I thought you were allergic to soylent red