Robert A. Johnson
Nikolaus Maack
Johnson? He wrote, "He", "She", "We", and a bunch of other books I
haven't read. I am currently reading his memoir, "Balancing Heaven and
Earth", and I was just wondering if anyone else has heard of the guy, or
cares to mention how they felt when they read his words. While Johnson is
a mystic, he lays a lot of emphasis on balance -- like the title of his
book says, we have to live in both worlds, heaven and earth.
(Note to people who hate the word "heaven" -- I think Johnson means the
world of "mystical experience", or the life of the higher, philosophical
mind, or the world of DREAM, or whatever other metaphorical term you can
think of for that place in our heads where anything is possible.)
Dream and reality, the world of poetry and the world of poultry -- these
two worlds blend together. Poultry can be poetry, and poetry can be
poultry. Eat both, or starve.
Nik
--
Every good piece of art kills something soft and small.
The Nik Maack Art Gallery
http://www.nikart.com
Dale Houstman
"Nikolaus Maack" <ac...@FreeNet.Carleton.CA> wrote in message
news:8lj0sh$b23$1...@freenet9.carleton.ca...
>
> (Note to people who hate the word "heaven" -- I think Johnson means the
> world of "mystical experience", or the life of the higher, philosophical
> mind, or the world of DREAM, or whatever other metaphorical term you can
> think of for that place in our heads where anything is possible.)
>
If a person uses the word "heaven" to describe a state, then he is either
attaching a certain religious quality to it, or he is - simply - lying.
Dreams are not "mystical experiences" or a metaphorical term for some
"place" but a term which points to a cognitive process for which - although
the investigation into remains quite incomplete - has certain scientific
parameters.
Why - as a nihilist - are you interested in this dualistic balance of
which your favorite new mystic is enamored? By the way - as you must know -
this notion of "balance" is as old as cheese, even though you present it as
if it were an idea which salvages the usual mumbo-jumbo from complete
hogwashery. It doesn't.
dmh
Nikolaus Maack
> If a person uses the word "heaven" to describe a state, then he is either
> attaching a certain religious quality to it, or he is - simply - lying.
"A certain religious quality" can describe what it feels like to enter a
dark and shadowy barn on a hot summer day, to see all the cracks in the
barn's old frame shine as the sunlight seeps in, illuminating the dust
that spins through the air, making the inside of the barn glow with a
spindly, angellic warmth. The vision stops everyone in their tracks it's
so beautiful. No one can speak. It starts to rain outside -- you can
hear the raindrops sizzling as they hit the warm dust in the air -- but
outside the sky stays as bright and as blue as always.
"A certain religious quality" can describe what it feels like to have just
finished having sex with your lover, and to be lying next to her, both of
you slicked down with sweat, your bodies trembling with release and bliss.
You're both awkward and shy and totally at peace. Neither of you wants to
speak, because it will ruin this perfect moment, so you both just lie
there breathing, communicating through the way you shift on the bed, or by
a series of contented sighs.
"A certain religious quality" can describe a dream you have, where you
wake up with a new understanding of yourself that you didn't have before
you went to sleep. Suddenly you know where all your anger comes from and
why, and you laugh to yourself because it's all so simple, so obvious now.
You're an entirely new person, and all it took was years of being alive to
this very moment, and then to have a dream to drag it all into your
conscious mind.
Dale, you seem to see "a certain religious quality" as only a bunch of
people huddled around a crucifix on a Sunday morning, singing songs and
mouthing platitudes, praying for your sinner soul which hasn't even
crawled out of bed yet, all of them submitting to some "higher authority"
fictional character. That ain't the sum of "a certain religious quality"
at all.
> Dreams are not "mystical experiences" or a metaphorical term for some
> "place" but a term which points to a cognitive process for which - although
> the investigation into remains quite incomplete - has certain scientific
> parameters.
Science is going to save your soul? Or, to translate this to words that
won't offend you, science is going to explain dreams to you, so you don't
have to think about them yourself?
There are levels to life. A dream is a scientific phenomena that can be
studied through brain chemistry. A dream is also a message to a dreamer.
A dream is also a myth, a story, a vision. A dream is art. A dream is
the irrational and "magical" pouring through your sleeping "spirit" as you
lie in a state resembling death. Some dreams feel so very foreign --
either so perverse or so heavenly -- as to feel like they come
from somewhere outside of yourself.
> Why - as a nihilist - are you interested in this dualistic balance of
> which your favorite new mystic is enamored?
Whatever you believe is true, but you also have to put the garbage out on
the curb on garbage day.
> By the way - as you must know - this notion of "balance" is as old as
>cheese, even though you present it as if it were an idea which salvages
>the usual mumbo-jumbo from complete hogwashery. It doesn't.
So it's an old idea. So what? So is Oedipus.
johnqadamsiii
I think so long as one isn't guided by ignorance or self-limiting
beliefs, follows his or her own instincts, coupled together with
the yearning imagination, each experience, be it "heavenly",
dreamy, or drug-induced, is as valid as the next, in the sense
that one may find beauty or meaning (or who's to say what else)
there. So with that i mean anyone deciding to read anything from
past "mystics" to "the pharoahs of egyt" or "how the west was
won", each perhaps with its own amount of fiction, i say more
power to them, so long as they are exercising their imaginations
healthily and mindful enough to stay clear of superstition.
john
-----------------------------------------------------------
Got questions? Get answers over the phone at Keen.com.
Up to 100 minutes free!
http://www.keen.com
brandon...@my-deja.com
a "spiritual" person because she can spout the usual hippie bullshit
philosophy. You know, "everything is beatiful" mixed in with a
confusion of Buddhism and Taoism. She's the type of person who attaches
certain religious qualities to her bullshit exeriences. Whenever I hear
someone like her talking about their mystical experiences I always get
this feeling that they really don't know what the hell happened, or
they're just talking shit, and acting all hippie-fadish (remember, I
live in Oregon). Basically, the point I'm making is that mystical words
like "heaven" are empty words. They mean nothing, and I'll never
understand what you're talking about until you start thinking.
Sent via Deja.com http://www.deja.com/
Before you buy.
Dale Houstman
"johnqadamsiii" <johnqadams...@yahoo.com.invalid> wrote in message
news:06be3290...@usw-ex0102-016.remarq.com...
> >
>
> I think so long as one isn't guided by ignorance or self-limiting
> beliefs, follows his or her own instincts, coupled together with
> the yearning imagination, each experience, be it "heavenly",
> dreamy, or drug-induced, is as valid as the next, in the sense
> that one may find beauty or meaning (or who's to say what else)
> there. So with that i mean anyone deciding to read anything from
> past "mystics" to "the pharoahs of egyt" or "how the west was
> won", each perhaps with its own amount of fiction, i say more
> power to them, so long as they are exercising their imaginations
> healthily and mindful enough to stay clear of superstition.
>
productions: Blake, St, Augustine, etc. But when one designates an
experience as "religious" he/she is separating the process from the general
run of imagination and mandating the existence of either a deity or a
mystical state that implies a world order outside the physical. There is no
other reason to use the word, since imagination covers it all neatly without
the need of the divine element. But we've been through all this before...
dmh
johnqadamsiii
<<I find the "supernatural" to be a useful metaphor for certain
aspects of the imagination. Breton looked at
tarot cards and attempted to use them in his struggles. Breton
also became interested in taoism, astrology,
numerology, and other "occult" phenomena, seeing in them
techniques for better self understanding. He
couldn't let himself touch Christianity -- seeing it as vile
brainwashing -- but really, in the end, it is no more
poisonous than tarot or astrology, and it can be used to better
understand ourselves and our impulses.>>
It's true that Breton immersed himself curiously in atleast some
of those you mentioned, that im aware. Matta also was "into"
so-called mysticism and i read once even that Duchamp was somehow
an experimenter of "alchemy", whether thats true or not or in
whatever sense of the word, I'm not sure. There are many such
cases of individuals throughout 19th and 20th century poetry,
like Rimbaud, Michaux, Dylan Thomas, some Surrealists, et cetera;
many that would perhaps place themselves into the catergory of
"seers". I don't see any of that as believing in some world order
of the universe - more along the lines it was a flirting with the
myterious, attempts at explaining those things left unexplained,
as well as of course a mode of expressing their words.
As for Christianity, i just can't see the usefulness of it as
you portray and apparently neither did they.
Nikolaus Maack
> Since you probably understand that Dale (among others here) does not
> believe in the sub/conscious mind, heaven/hell, mysticism, the validity
> of the Oedipus complex etc., you would be using these specific terms
> for what reason?
Because I believe in them, if not as actual concrete things and places,
then as useful metaphors to describe certain experiences I have been
through. You seem to be implying that I would use the terms merely to
upset others, to pick fights. That's not the case.
>> A dream is also a message to a dreamer.
>
> A message (not sure what you mean by this) _to_ the dreamer _from_ the
> dreamer.
Agreed. As for what I mean by the word "message" -- pretty much
everything the word implies. A message can be a story, a fact, a lie, a
truth, a philosophical query, a signal, a warning... The possibilities
are endless. Dreams are messages from me, to me, telling me "something"
of some relevance. Sometimes they're just static.
> I hope you'll move this discussion away from what might appear
> "supernatural" onto one about the imagination.
I find the "supernatural" to be a useful metaphor for certain aspects of
the imagination. Breton looked at tarot cards and attempted to use them
in his struggles. Breton also became interested in taoism, astrology,
numerology, and other "occult" phenomena, seeing in them techniques for
better self understanding. He couldn't let himself touch Christianity --
seeing it as vile brainwashing -- but really, in the end, it is no more
poisonous than tarot or astrology, and it can be used to better understand
ourselves and our impulses.
Avoiding this material out of fear or arrogance or bias does not help
self-understanding. Everything under the sun is fair game, as far as I am
concerned. Obviously my explorations are leading me in different
directions than some of you -- I respect the subconscious, dream,
mysticism, therapy, the Oedipal complex, God, gods, etc. I refuse to deny
my nature so that I can be "comfortable" among those of you who loudly
crow your atheism.
Such is my right, of course. My mind may wander where it may. I wish you
luck on your quest, and hope you wish me luck with mine.
Nikolaus Maack
> Basically, the point I'm making is that mystical words
> like "heaven" are empty words. They mean nothing, and I'll never
> understand what you're talking about until you start thinking.
Perhaps you will never understand me until you start feeling?
Obviously I disagree with you. I think there are a class of words that
struggle to describe experiences that are beyond language. These words
can sound hollow -- and are often used in hollow ways -- but that's
because they describe emotions and feelings that we have difficulty
pinning down in concrete language.
Surely you've had an experience where you found yourself opening and
closing your mouth, unable to begin to describe it, unable to even
comprehend it. All you know is that something big and meaningful and
spectacular happened. The only words you can use to point at it are
"heaven" and "god" and "angel" and "reality beyond reality" and
"supernatural". Even if you believe in NONE of these things, the words
are useful. You can't just say "imagination" all the time. That doesn't
catch the flavour of the experience.
For example, if you're in a really bad mood, say you just got dumped by
your girlfriend, and a thunderstorm breaks out. The sky is half gray and
foul, half caught in sunset -- one of those big sky Wyoming moments, both
stormy and clear -- and the gray gristle clouds are tainted pink by the
setting sun. It might suit your mood to say that the clouds are the
cottage cheese ass of god, mooning you, and the thunder rumbling around
you is a cataclysmic god fart, shaking the earth. As you walk in your
clear-eyed misery, even the universe seems to actively despise you --
every pebble on the ground, every speck of dust in the air, and the ass of
God hanging over your head, threatening to shower you with divine fecal
hail.
Is this imagery sacrilegous? Not as far as I'm concerned. The concept of
God is a useful one, if only for satire. Sometimes, for me, it's useful
for more than just satire. These words -- heaven, hell, magic,
witchcraft, the supernatural, the paranormal, the divine -- like all
words, have their uses. They can describe things we have difficulty
describing.
Even if you don't believe in God, or a "greater power", you must have felt
your own insignificance before. The universe is a vast blanket, eight
miles long, eight miles wide, and the earth is one measly fuzz-ball on an
insignificant corner of that blanket. And you, you're just a microscopic
speck on that tiny fuzz-ball planet. Your life is but a microsecond. If
you blink for too long -- poof! -- you disappear, to be replaced by
millions of other microscopic specks who want to live their own
microseconds.
These feelings of insignificance, of smallness, of being a part of some
vast, incomprehensible universe, of having no idea what's out there, or,
on occasion, what's inside your own head -- these feelings are akin to
what some people call "religious" feelings. Think of religious words as
just another language for describing the delicious torment that is being
alive.
Dale Houstman
"cythera" <cyt...@my-deja.com> wrote in message
news:8llud7$uar$1...@nnrp1.deja.com...
>
> > You can't just say "imagination" all the time.
> > That doesn't catch the flavour of the experience.
There he is telling us what we can and can't do again. I use the words
"imagniation" and "marvelous" and "surreality" all the time, and they appear
to capture everything and more than any of Nik's mystical touchstones. So I
must disagree. As do you...
>
> Our imaginations -- the Marvelous -- Surreality. Are these not what
> you are talking about?
>
Nik seems to have the need to mystify most of his experiences to lend them
an air of value and power. To me this represents an imaginative lack, as if
being human just weren't enough for him. But this is an old argument that
Nik continues to misrepresent again and again - witness his millionth
recital of the (by now old) observation that the surrealists were interested
in the occult. This is true, but - as they say themselves and as has been
explained to Nik time and time again - from an "archaeological" viewpoint.
They realized that all those marvelous divinities are actually
manifestations of the human mind chained to the social mandate of the times:
religion. They represent the human imagination as co-opted by the
powers-that-be. The interest remains, but the imagination functions quite
nicely without a supernatural context. It will not hurt us to give up the
divine in an attempt to regain the human mind for humans. Merely the fact
that religious creations are used as "leashes" to rein in human desire and
to fatten bank accounts is enough to discount their validity, and to attempt
to ascribe these phenomena to some more cognitive function. What is Nik
afraid of?
dmh
Nikolaus Maack
> It's true that Breton immersed himself curiously in atleast some
> of those you mentioned, that im aware.
Breton, according to one biography I read, deliberately altered the date
of his birthday by a single day, because he prefered the astrological
significance of that date, plus it meant his birthday would be on the same
day of some of his favorite heroes. He also referred to himself, on
occasion, as 17 13, because in French, there is usually a horizontal line
through the seven, making the numbers 17 13 look like "A B". Breton saw
"significance" in these numbers. In the past, a couple of people have
posted a talk Breton gave to the Canadian CBC on the topic of taoism, and
how he saw significance in it.
All this is to say that these topics are not taboo. Quite the opposite.
There is no reason not to play in these areas whatsoever. You seem to
agree with me, John. Others don't. Oh well.
> many that would perhaps place themselves into the catergory of
> "seers".
I believe Rimbaud's quest was to specifically see that universe, that
world, that most people ignore -- pure reality. What's beneath all the
illusion, the lies, the distortion? Like you say, this sounds
suspiciously like a man who would call himself a "seer". It's that sort
of "mysticism" that appeals to me as well.
> I don't see any of that as believing in some world order
> of the universe - more along the lines it was a flirting with the
> myterious, attempts at explaining those things left unexplained,
> as well as of course a mode of expressing their words.
Agreed. I don't see any certainty, any belief in a consistent whole.
None of the surrealists bought into an entire belief system whole hog --
except maybe surrealism. They played with belief. I think toying with
the various systems gave surrealists some higher understanding of the
"universe" itself.
> As for Christianity, i just can't see the usefulness of it as
> you portray and apparently neither did they.
I can think of at least one surrealist that played with Christian symbols.
However, in this newsgroup at least, there's some debate as to whether
Dali is a "real" surrealist or not.
Let me try to suggest how Christianity can be a useful tool. Consider its
story -- Jesus born of virgin mom, Jesus with a philosophy of "love thy
brother", Jesus getting nailed on to a cross -- "Why hast thou forsaken
me?" -- Jesus shows up alive a couple of days later with pizza for
everybody, Jesus rises up into heaven.
The story alone is rife with possibility. We can contort it, rewrite it,
massage it, destroy it, rebuild it. This myth -- myth in the sense of a
story everyone in our culture, and many outside our culture, knows, be
they atheist or fundie -- can be used to access certain types of emotions.
We can ride these symbols into our own subconscious, or into the
subconsciouses of others. Or, if you don't believe in the "subconscious",
we can use these symbols to MAKE CONTACT with others.
I love the re-writes of the Christian fable. For example, Gore Vidal's
"Live From Golgotha: The Gospel According to Gore Vidal". In Vidal's
version, time travellers from the future are coming to the past to see the
crucifixion. Historical figures are signing deals with TV stations.
Jesus, it turns out, has a weight problem, which has the television execs
all worried.
Any story that has been repeated over and over to us, since we were
children, long into our adulthoods, has a use simply as a story everyone
knows. We can make references to it, and people understand what we mean.
"Get down off of your cross, Nik!" -- is a good example. We can make
commentary using Christian metaphors because they are familiar.
That, and some of the ideas of Christianity can be stolen outright and
used. Turning a wafer into the flesh of Christ -- transubstantiation --
is a great idea. What can we do with that? Turning statues into living
entities. Turning paint into blood. Turning chocolate chip cookies into
the flesh of the Cookie Monster. Turning the actual flesh of Christ --
grown using scraps of DNA in a vat -- into mass produced cannibal wafers.
Christianity's symbolism can be mined, just like the symbolism of any
story, any mythology, can be mined. When a story is widely believed in,
it means artist and audience have a common ground, which can then be
fucked with.
These are just some ideas I had while struggling to wake up this morning.
Nikolaus Maack
> It seems to me that to call these experiences something other than
> _what they are_ -- our imaginations inventing patterns to enhance our
> lives -- is to diminish or even deny our experience of ourselves as
> autonomous and self-creating.
I agree with your description of what is happening -- yes, gods and angels
are US, as you put it -- but that doesn't describe the actual events, the
actual experiences we undergo.
How are you going to talk about the grandeur of your imagination without
using metaphor? Describing experiences as "what they are" doesn't always
convey what actually happened, what was felt, what was seen. Like I said
in a previous post, sometimes the experiences we undergo need to be
"cross-referenced" with more "mystical" language -- being in bed, next to
your lover, both of you trembling and silent in post-coital bliss, can be
described as a "religious experience".
There is no harm in describing it in such a way. Refusing to use such
language, refusing to use such metaphor, is superstitious behavior. Do
you genuinely believe that to describe my girlfriend as an "angel" is to
buy into Christian mythology?
If I say I had sex with my girlfriend, and while doing so, I saw my cock
as Christ's cock, and my semen as Christ's blood, and that I passed on
divinity to my lover in a wild wet burst -- does this kind of language
"promote" Christianity? Am I encouraging people to believe in Jesus? Am
I doing something "wrong"?
Using the word "god" does not mean buying into the entire religious
package. "As I stood at the top of the hill, staring down at the city
below, I was God." Is such a description wrong, in any way? Are you
suggesting that a writer should be forced to say, instead, "I felt a
great, intense, powerful burst of energy"? That they describe the "actual
experience as it happened"?
Are you saying metaphor is wrong?
> Our imaginations -- the Marvelous -- Surreality. Are these not what
> you are talking about?
Yes. But if I am writing a poem about an experience, I cannot describe it
with any accuracy by saying, "And at the moment, I projected my feelings
into the woods, projected my fears and anxieties into the darkness around
me, and I saw ghosts and demons. My projected insecurities manifested in
the marvellous. I was surrounded by my own ghosts."
This is analysis after the fact. At the time, in the woods, I felt fear.
The darkness contained monsters, devils, evil. I saw Satan in the
shadows, wearing the night like a trenchcoat, his eyes two flashing
fireflies that burned red in the dark.
That Satan is a projection of my own shadow on to the world is an accurate
description of events. But it ignores the emotions of the time. It
doesn't capture the feelings. I cannot, personally, refer to all of my
experiences in cold, clear, clean scientific surrealist jargon. Sometimes
the shadows are ghosts, and that's all there is to it.
Nikolaus Maack
The ignorance of others.
Breton, as you put it, suggested mining the mystical, playing with it,
using it. You're the one who has a fit if someone so much as uses the
word "soul". Do you really see this single word as buying into the
oppressive religious evils of the world? If so, I think you're
overreacting.
If I say, "Jesus Christ, is it hot in here!" am I buying into religious
oppression? If I say, "That guy thinks he's the freaking Son of God, with
his fancy car and sexy haircut!" am I oppressing the world? If I say,
"Get down off your cross!" am I encouraging Christian morals?
I'm the one who is talking about religion and mysticism as valid places to
be explored. While you can preach history, and say that Breton allowed
for such exploration, your own behavior demonstrates rabid paranoia on the
subject. It's like you expect Jesus to break into your home at any moment
and to sodomize you while you're sleeping.
As I think I have demonstrated repeatedly, I play with the concept of God.
I undermine it, build it up, then undermine it again. I talk of God farts
and the blood of Christ as being semen. On other occasionas I describe a
sensation as being "angelic", "holy", "spiritual". Saying it's all part
of my "imagination" doesn't capture the feeling I wish to describe. So I
turn to the older, more mystical language.
They're just words. I use them as I wish to.
Surely you see your own imagination as being powerful enough to take on
something as ridiculous as the Catholic Church? Are you going to let a
word like "soul" get the best of you? Are you always going to piss your
pants in fury whenever anyone makes refence to "God"?
johnqadamsiii
>johnqadamsiii (johnqadams...@yahoo.com.invalid) writes:
>> It's true that Breton immersed himself curiously in atleast
some
>> of those you mentioned, that im aware.
>
>Breton, according to one biography I read, deliberately altered
the date
>of his birthday by a single day, because he prefered the
astrological
>significance of that date, plus it meant his birthday would be
on the same
>day of some of his favorite heroes. He also referred to
himself, on
>occasion, as 17 13, because in French, there is usually a
horizontal line
>through the seven, making the numbers 17 13 look like "A B".
Breton saw
>"significance" in these numbers. In the past, a couple of
people have
>posted a talk Breton gave to the Canadian CBC on the topic of
taoism, and
>how he saw significance in it.
He also had green coloring poured in his drinks, just as a
novelty. I doubt that meant he was superstious, and beyond the
numbers "17 13" he probably found nothing more besides novelty
there as well - or i could be wrong about it.
>
>All this is to say that these topics are not taboo. Quite the
opposite.
>There is no reason not to play in these areas whatsoever. You
seem to
>agree with me, John. Others don't. Oh well.
Yes, believe it or not i agree with you, to some extent.
Played with the idea that belief coudl limit one's influx of
reality, or that belief itself would define the way knowledge
and dream content come packaged to us in, or didn't. It is
difficult to see that as strictly a belief system, or certainly
not one that isn't wide open to horizons with fresh
new 'vistas'. And so to put it one way in the words on Antonin
Artuad:
"Surrealism is above all a state of mind, it does not advocate
formulas. The most important point is to put oneself in the
right frame of mind. "
I have no doubt that christians have contributed to something
useful in the past, and its fine to borrow ideas from anywhere
really. Though, the true problem I have is with that particular
belief system, variety of control, susperstition, and myth.
Other than that, i could talk about Christ all day long - the
shroud of turan - yay! Just kidding.
johnqadamsiii
>
>"johnqadamsiii" <johnqadams...@yahoo.com.invalid> wrote
in message
>news:06be3290...@usw-ex0102-016.remarq.com...
>> >
>>
>> I think so long as one isn't guided by ignorance or self-
limiting
>> beliefs, follows his or her own instincts, coupled together
with
>> the yearning imagination, each experience, be it "heavenly",
>> dreamy, or drug-induced, is as valid as the next, in the sense
>> that one may find beauty or meaning (or who's to say what
else)
>> there. So with that i mean anyone deciding to read anything
from
>> past "mystics" to "the pharoahs of egyt" or "how the west was
>> won", each perhaps with its own amount of fiction, i say more
>> power to them, so long as they are exercising their
imaginations
>> healthily and mindful enough to stay clear of superstition.
>>
> True enough: I, for one, enjoy all sorts of supposedly
religious
>productions: Blake, St, Augustine, etc.
I wonder if St. Mathieu would fall into that category as well.
>But when one designates an
>experience as "religious" he/she is separating the process from
the general
>run of imagination and mandating the existence of either a
deity or a
>mystical state that implies a world order outside the physical.
There is no
>other reason to use the word, since imagination covers it all
neatly without
>the need of the divine element. But we've been through all this
before...
>
>dmh
>
>
>
>
-----------------------------------------------------------
Dale Houstman
> In article <8lmugl$64p$1...@freenet9.carleton.ca>,
> ac...@FreeNet.Carleton.CA (Nikolaus Maack) wrote:
> > cythera (cyt...@my-deja.com) writes:
> > > It seems to me that to call these experiences something other than
> > > _what they are_ -- our imaginations inventing patterns to enhance
> > > our lives -- is to diminish or even deny our experience of
> > > ourselves as autonomous and self-creating.
> >
> > I agree with your description of what is happening -- yes, gods and
> > angels are US, as you put it -- but that doesn't describe the actual
> > events, the actual experiences we undergo.
> >
> > How are you going to talk about the grandeur of your imagination
> > without using metaphor?
>
> believe that deities are alive, why use them as a symbol of what is?
>
It is totaly pointless to begin afresh this argument with Nik: he has been
given every chance to cease repeating the same bullshit and lies, and yet he
insists that using the word "deity" carries with it no mystical weight (in
other words, it does not mean what it means!) and yet he also - in the same
breath - ascribes to this denuded notion the power to describe some state of
transendence. That this is contrary crap is obvious to anyone who knows
anything about the connection between words and their accumulated meanings
means obviously nothing to our joylful nilhilist. A nihilist - by the way -
who finds it necessary to find a word to describe a transcendent state that
he - as a nihilist - had no access to. He is either too stupid to realize
the absurdity of his ideas, or he is purposely throwing out trash because -
as Andrea's "second-best tool" - he has no other path open to him. Out of a
lingering remnant of pity toward him, I assume he is being willfully obtuse.
But he is hopeless beyond hope. One week he stated some lie about Breton's
relationship to the mystical. I and several others, reiterated - using
examples from Breton's own words - that Breton's interest was archaelogical
in nature. That same week he repeated his assertion with extra lies about
our responses. And the debate was old even at that point. Now here he is
again repeating the same insupportable tripe. One has to assume he is
injured in some way, mentally or ethically, to resort to such echolalia.
dmh
cythera
>
>"cythera" <cyt...@my-deja.com> wrote in message
>news:8lnnbp$9pn$1...@nnrp1.deja.com...
>> In article <8lmugl$64p$1...@freenet9.carleton.ca>,
>> ac...@FreeNet.Carleton.CA (Nikolaus Maack) wrote:
>> > cythera (cyt...@my-deja.com) writes:
[...]
>he is purposely throwing out trash because - as Andrea's
>"second-best tool" - he has no other path open to him.
>dmh
Does anyone know what "her" (: first-best tool might be?
Egads.
cythera
barrett john erickson
> (brandon...@my-deja.com) writes:
> > Basically, the point I'm making is that mystical words
> > like "heaven" are empty words. They mean nothing, and I'll never
> > understand what you're talking about until you start thinking.
>
> Perhaps you will never understand me until you start feeling?
>
> Obviously I disagree with you. I think there are a class of words that
> struggle to describe experiences that are beyond language. These words
> can sound hollow -- and are often used in hollow ways -- but that's
> because they describe emotions and feelings that we have difficulty
> pinning down in concrete language.
>
"concrete language" is only inadequate to the task for those who haven't
actually explored the experience, but merely labeled it as beyond the norm
and dumped it into a junk drawer with all the other stuff they've lazily
tagged "beyond language" because they aren't up to the explorations
necessary to deploy language to its fullest extent.
what you refer to are not "experiences that are beyond language". they are
experiences some (most?) people fail to integrate into their reality because
they have become accustomed to thinking of them as in some way "unreal".
they choose to think of them as "unreal" because they'd rather surrender to
the poverty of their every day living as "reality" than risk the upheaval of
challanging their most cherished assumptions in search of an imaginatively
enhanced reality.
this is a personal failure of the imagination, not a characteristic of the
experience.
-- barrett
BLUE FEATHERS #3 is now available
http://www.MagneticFields.org/blue/
bar...@MagneticFields.org
http://www.MagneticFields.org/
surrealists in minnesota
Sur...@MagneticFields.org
==============================================
"Everything tends to make us believe that there exists a
certain point of the mind at which life and death, the real and
the imagined, past and future, the communicable and the
incommunicable, high and low, cease to be perceived as
contradictions."
...André Breton
==============================================
Dale Houstman
"barrett john erickson" <bar...@magneticfields.org> wrote in message
news:397fac4e$0$8302$7f89...@newsreader.visi.com...
>
> >
>
> "concrete language" is only inadequate to the task for those who haven't
> actually explored the experience, but merely labeled it as beyond the norm
> and dumped it into a junk drawer with all the other stuff they've lazily
> tagged "beyond language" because they aren't up to the explorations
> necessary to deploy language to its fullest extent.
>
> what you refer to are not "experiences that are beyond language". they
are
> experiences some (most?) people fail to integrate into their reality
because
> they have become accustomed to thinking of them as in some way "unreal".
> they choose to think of them as "unreal" because they'd rather surrender
to
> the poverty of their every day living as "reality" than risk the upheaval
of
> challanging their most cherished assumptions in search of an imaginatively
> enhanced reality.
>
> this is a personal failure of the imagination, not a characteristic of the
> experience.
>
This is quite a comment coming from a person who usually doesn't know what
you're talling about, even when it's face to face.
'Course, I'm deaf...
dmh
Nikolaus Maack
> "concrete language" is only inadequate to the task for those who haven't
> actually explored the experience, but merely labeled it as beyond the norm
> and dumped it into a junk drawer with all the other stuff they've lazily
> tagged "beyond language" because they aren't up to the explorations
> necessary to deploy language to its fullest extent.
From my perspective, the arrogance of saying, "I have fully understood
this experience which I have undergone, and can express it in its entirety
using concrete language," borders on madness. A single experience can
take up the rest of your entire life, if you really wish to explore it
fully. You can swim in a single moment for all of eternity, deciphering
all the layers of meaning.
When I say that the meaning is "beyong language", I do not mean that the
experience is dismissable or unexplorable. I am not saying, "What's the
point in exploring this sucker? No figuring it out. Oh well." I'm saying
it cannot be explored to its bottom, because there is no bottom, and most
of the aspects of it cannot be expressed in language.
An example.
This afternoon, I was taking a walk, and I decided to visit a nearby
graveyard. It just seemed like the right thing to do. So, without
thinking critically about it, I walked into a sea of shining tombstones.
They were all highly polished, and the sun made them glisten as though
wet. I read off the names aloud as I walked past them. "Foote" was one
that caught my attention. I wondered how it's pronounced. Like the word
"foot"? Or maybe so that it rhymes with "toot"?
I saw another interesting name and then another, and I wandered from
tombstone to tombstone this way, until I found myself facing Stephen
Kirby. According to the dates on the grave, Kirby died at the age of
twenty-five. His mother and father are both still living, and plan to be
buried with him. They were both born in 1940. The uncarved squares where
the years of their deaths will be written were blank.
I stood in front of the grave for a moment. It was a round black dot,
huge in size. Like an enormous period at the end of a sentence, I
thought, and chuckled to myself. I then spoke to Kirby, asked if I could
call him Stephen, and sat there for a while. I told him I was nearly
thirty-one -- almost six years older than he was -- and I asked him if
being dead was easier than being alive. I drank some bottled water and
offered him some, pooring a little of it on his grave. Maybe it's hot in
the ground. It looked like it might rain later, but this was good bottled
water, and it only seemed right to share.
"I don't know you, Stephen," I said, "and you don't know me. I hope you
don't mind me talking to you like this. I don't know when's the last time
your parents visited you, seeing as how you died in '85."
I considered reading my book there, for a while, but it seemed
disrespectful, so I sat there in the hot summer sun and thought about
Stephen Kirby and who he might be. I thought about a scene in a Batman
cartoon, "Mask of the Phantasm", where Bruce Wayne is standing at his
parents' grave, talking to them. I thought about death. I thought about
being very happy that I was alive. I thought about my parents, and how
they'd feel if I'd died at age twenty-five.
I saw some people in the distance, a family. Were they coming from a
funeral? They didn't look very somber, but that probably didn't mean
anything. Then I saw two old men walking my way. They were, I
speculated, looking for a grave of a friend of theirs, to pay their
respects. I decided to leave. I didn't want to have to talk to people.
I walked through the rows of tombstones out into the suburban streets. A
family was walking past a gas-station; they all had ice-cream cones in
their hands. Did they ever worry about dying? Were they sane not to
think about it? Was I weird for walking through a graveyard, thinking
about death? Was it better to think about how one day you'll be dead, and
use this to guide your life?
I continued walking home.
Now, if I want to explore this experience, there are several different
places (an infinite number of places?) to start.
1) Why did I walk into the graveyard in the first place? Well, I've been
reading a lot about surrealism, following your nature, giving into
impulses, and that sort of thing. Also, I've been reading "Balancing
Heaven and Earth", where the author talks about "following slender
threads", meaning, follow fate, give in to the tao.
The notion of giving into "fate" or "whim" or "impulse" is a very powerful
one to me. The notion of being a wandering fool, a minstrel, a pilgrim
without a destination, a gypsy, appeals to me. With all of this in mind,
I saw the graveyard, thought, I'm going there, and did it, without
worrying why.
One possible (subconscious) reason I went there is that this is the same
graveyard that sent me junk mail. They have a crematorium on their
premises, and they've been advertising it. I sent away for free
information and that got me thinking about cremation in general and I
eventually wrote a themestream article about it.
http://www.themestream.com/gspd_browse/browse/view_article.gsp?c_id=54892
But there are other possible explanations as to why I went into the
graveyard. Lots to explore there.
2) Why did I get interested in the names on the graves? When my brother
Fred visited me in Wyoming, we went to the local graveyard and read names
off tombstones. I wrote some of them down. I found this to be a great
way to get interesting names for short stories. I'd never come up with a
name as appealing as "Foote", or "Birtch", or "Kirby" on my own.
Why not? I don't know. The names I tend to come up with are
rather ordinary. I don't know if I picked up the tombstone technique in
one of my writing classes. I do remember one professor suggesting we flip
through the phone book, and find interesting names that way. He lectured
about how the name of a character can be very important. You need a name
that suits the person to perfection.
I could explore names on headstones, the meaning of names, etc for a lot
longer.
3) Kirby, dead at age twenty-five. Why is that important to me? I had a
friend of mine die in a car accident. He was probably about twenty-five,
at the time. His death left me with a lot of messed up feelings. I both
liked him and hated him. It pissed me off that he was dead, just like
that, for no reason. It makes me wonder why he died and not me. None of
these are especially "original" thoughts, but they're the thoughts I had
when my friend died.
I dreamt about him on and off, where he told me that he wasn't dead, that
there had been some kind of mistake. I always believed him in the dream.
Of course, it was a mistake! That makes sense.
There's a lot of exploring here I could do, and the relationship between
me, my friend, and seeing Stephen Kirby's grave -- not to mention all the
emotional material.
4) Stephen Kirby's parents plan to be buried with their son. The thought
of it makes me wince. I doubt that Kirby would have wanted it that way.
This makes me think of Oedipal complexes and parents who don't want their
children to grow up. At twenty-five, Kirby should have been at least
beginning to be on his own. His parents hadn't let go. Is that reflected
in Kirby's tombstone?
My own mother has often suggested I move back home, live with her, my dad,
and my two brothers. The thought gives me chills. I don't want to do it.
I feel sorry that my mother feels so lonely, that she's worrying about
"empty nest syndrome" -- both my brothers are old enough that they could
leave at any time -- but I don't want to be the one to come back.
My mom has plans for "when your father dies" to have my sister and
her husband and child to move home. I don't know if my sister knows about
this.
Lots can be explored here.
I could go on and on about my graveyard experience, but I'll stop
exploring this one event.
My point is, this single situation is bottomless. I have been discussing
it, for the most part, in concrete terms, but I could wander off into the
nonconcrete. Why did I go to the graveyard today? What drew me there?
Was it an act of "free will"? Do we have free will? Was it fate?
Is there some sort of "tao" to the universe? What is death? How does it
make me feel? Why does our culture bury its dead? Why graveyards? Why
headstones?
And on and on.
> what you refer to are not "experiences that are beyond language". they are
> experiences some (most?) people fail to integrate into their reality because
> they have become accustomed to thinking of them as in some way "unreal".
No. I'm sure some people do it for that reason, but you are limiting the
notion of what an "experience beyond language" is. Every event has an
infinite nature to it. There is no way to detail everything attached to a
single event. The connections between "random" elements, the profundity
of emotion -- I laughed a miserable little laugh when I saw my face
reflected in the shiny surface of Stephen Kirby's grave -- how these
emotions connect to past emotions, the totality of a single experience...
I refuse to believe you're suggesting that an entire experience can be
described. And that entirety, that vastness, that complicatedness -- it
can't be integrated into a person's reality. It's TOO BIG to comprehend
fully. Nothing can be comprehended FULLY.
> this is a personal failure of the imagination, not a characteristic of the
> experience.
From what you are telling me, I can't help but feel that your imagination
doesn't reach very far, if you genuinely believe that it all can be caught
-- ALL OF IT -- in concrete language, plumbed to its depths, fully
understood and "integrated". You make it sound like an experience is
nothing more than a fast food meal. Unwrap it, eat it, digest it, retain
some of the nutrients, and shit the rest out.
I don't work that way. I suspect you don't either. I hope this gives you
a clearer picture of what I am driving at.
Parry
>
> In article <8lk7l7$3r4$1...@freenet9.carleton.ca>,
> ac...@FreeNet.Carleton.CA (Nikolaus Maack) wrote:
> > "Dale Houstman" (dm...@citilink.com) writes:
> > > If a person uses the word "heaven" to describe a state, then he
> > > is either attaching a certain religious quality to it, or he is -
> > > simply - lying.
>
> > you wake up with a new understanding of yourself that you didn't
> > have before you went to sleep. Suddenly you know where all your
> > anger comes from and why, and you laugh to yourself because it's
> > all so simple, so obvious now.
> > You're an entirely new person, and all it took was years of being
> > alive to this very moment, and then to have a dream to drag it all
> > into your conscious mind.
>
> believe in the sub/conscious mind, heaven/hell, mysticism, the validity
> of the Oedipus complex etc., you would be using these specific terms
> for what reason?
To bog the group in pointless debates? Perhaps he bandies about words
like “heaven,” “soul,” or “a certain religious quality” on a surrealism
ng (while disavowing there should be any religious connotations read
into the terms) because he enjoys making people puke on him. The
regularity with which he re-engages the same meritless discussion
suggests either: godthought has tied his brain in a knot; he thinks he
can increase the value of his ideas by arguing down everyone else’s
standards; or it’s a reliable way for him to get attention.
-- Parry
-----= Posted via Newsfeeds.Com, Uncensored Usenet News =-----
http://www.newsfeeds.com - The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World!
-----== Over 80,000 Newsgroups - 16 Different Servers! =-----
Parry
>
> Nik wrote:
> <<I find the "supernatural" to be a useful metaphor for certain
> aspects of the imagination. Breton looked at
> tarot cards and attempted to use them in his struggles. Breton
> also became interested in taoism, astrology,
> numerology, and other "occult" phenomena, seeing in them
> techniques for better self understanding. He
> couldn't let himself touch Christianity -- seeing it as vile
> brainwashing -- but really, in the end, it is no more
> poisonous than tarot or astrology, and it can be used to better
> understand ourselves and our impulses.>>
>
> so-called mysticism and i read once even that Duchamp was somehow
> an experimenter of "alchemy", whether thats true or not or in
> whatever sense of the word, I'm not sure. There are many such
> cases of individuals throughout 19th and 20th century poetry,
> like Rimbaud, Michaux, Dylan Thomas, some Surrealists, et cetera;
> of the universe - more along the lines it was a flirting with the
> myterious, attempts at explaining those things left unexplained,
> as well as of course a mode of expressing their words.
> you portray and apparently neither did they.
Nik’s wrong, anyway. Christianity is not just as “poisonous” as tarot or
astrology. It’s far worse -- a hierarchical and authoritarian moralism
that has inflicted incalculable misery on the world, not a card-reading
parlour game. It’s demise is overdue. I’m against using christian
imagery except for clearly sacrilegious purposes, otherwise keeping the
images in circulation only inflates their significance. If I were to
write that Nik could stretch out Christ’s anus and wear Jesus on his
head, someone with a religious proclivity could misinterpret the comment
as being “ironic.”
Dale Houstman
"Parry" <pa...@zxOMIT.mail.com> wrote in message
news:3980B7...@zxOMIT.mail.com...
> cythera wrote:
> >
> > In article <8lk7l7$3r4$1...@freenet9.carleton.ca>,
> > ac...@FreeNet.Carleton.CA (Nikolaus Maack) wrote:
> > > "Dale Houstman" (dm...@citilink.com) writes:
> > > > If a person uses the word "heaven" to describe a state, then he
> > > > is either attaching a certain religious quality to it, or he is -
> > > > simply - lying.
> >
> > > "A certain religious quality" can describe a dream you have, where
> > > you wake up with a new understanding of yourself that you didn't
> > > have before you went to sleep. Suddenly you know where all your
> > > anger comes from and why, and you laugh to yourself because it's
> > > all so simple, so obvious now.
> > > You're an entirely new person, and all it took was years of being
> > > alive to this very moment, and then to have a dream to drag it all
> > > into your conscious mind.
> >
> > Since you probably understand that Dale (among others here) does not
> > believe in the sub/conscious mind, heaven/hell, mysticism, the validity
> > of the Oedipus complex etc., you would be using these specific terms
> > for what reason?
>
> To bog the group in pointless debates?
This is my opinion, on the days I'm feeling generous.
>Perhaps he bandies about words like "heaven," "soul," or "a certain
religious quality" on >a surrealism ng (while disavowing there should be any
religious connotations read
> into the terms) because he enjoys making people puke on him. The
> regularity with which he re-engages the same meritless discussion
> suggests either: godthought has tied his brain in a knot; he thinks he
> can increase the value of his ideas by arguing down everyone else's
> standards; or it's a reliable way for him to get attention.
Again - my opinion (you're probably getting them on the cheap at the Dale
Half-Baked Notions Shoppe!). Most interesting to me is his constant
repudiation of even his argued points. This must be purposeful - and I am
sure he ties it (with a weak thread) to a "philosophy" that is really a
defensive mechanism. I suppose there is no getting around it, as I presume
it constitutes his entire sense of self. For instance, he builds up the
notion of the word "heaven" as being representative of all that is
trascendent, and yet - almost immediately - insists that the word means
nothing. One can only wonder at such insipid cognition.
dmh
johnqadamsiii
Now there is a hat that i wouldn't mind having. But, i think
perhaps Nik is taking a little too much un-called for criticism
on atleast this one thing - and i know the mention of such a
notion will swell up criticism in itself. I'll definitely admit
he's a little confused on his god-terms and how christianity can
= everything or nothing and thus escape the probing microscope
of "critical thinking". But I perceive his attempts within the
discussion as honest. And afterall, let us not forget the
importance of dream and reality and the early influences of
surrealism, like Jung, which in a roundabout way he was
attempting to point up.
Consider that Breton maintained (italics) this about surrealism:
"The idea of surrealism tends simply towards the total
recuperation of our psychic strength by a means which is nothing
less than a vertiginous descent into ourselves, the systematic
illumination of hidden places and the progressive darkening of
others, perpetual promenading across forbidden zones; and there
is no danger of it coming to an end while man is still able to
distinguish an animal from a flame or a stone."
also consider barrett's signature qoute which is quite similar
to this:
"True, without falsehood, certain and most true, that which is
above is the same as that which is below, and that which is
below is the same as that which is above, for the performance of
miracles of the One Thing. And as all things are from the One,
by the meditation of One, so all things have their birth from
this One Thing by adaptation. "
Thus, i don't feel there is any misaligning of surrealism in
bringing up the mystical aspect or previous flirtings WITH such
mysticism, because quite simply there was such exploration in
the attempt to find fulfilling answers about the nature of
ourselves, and the re-marriage, reincorporation of dream reality
to conscious reality, and the mention of this "psyche" thing.
Even if it meant "perpetual promenading across forbidden zones".
So throw me to the paper lions for being honest, if you must.
john
Dale Houstman
"johnqadamsiii" <johnqadams...@yahoo.com.invalid> wrote in message
> >
>
>
> Consider that Breton maintained (italics) this about surrealism:
>
> "The idea of surrealism tends simply towards the total
> recuperation of our psychic strength by a means which is nothing
> less than a vertiginous descent into ourselves, the systematic
> illumination of hidden places and the progressive darkening of
> others, perpetual promenading across forbidden zones; and there
> is no danger of it coming to an end while man is still able to
> distinguish an animal from a flame or a stone."
>
> also consider barrett's signature qoute which is quite similar
> to this:
>
> "True, without falsehood, certain and most true, that which is
> above is the same as that which is below, and that which is
> below is the same as that which is above, for the performance of
> miracles of the One Thing. And as all things are from the One,
> by the meditation of One, so all things have their birth from
> this One Thing by adaptation. "
Similarity does not imply convergence or brotherhood. The reason a mystical
statement may parallel a surrealist (or a carpentery) statement is simple
enough: they are both products of the imagination. But surrealism has
denuded - quite purposefully - these products of their divinity. This is a
truth Nik - dishonestly - refuses to note again and again. Nothing he says
on this score is new to any one who has studied surrealist history, but his
interpretations of it all in mystical terms is a outright slander.
>
> Thus, i don't feel there is any misaligning of surrealism in
> bringing up the mystical aspect or previous flirtings WITH such
> mysticism, because quite simply there was such exploration in
> the attempt to find fulfilling answers about the nature of
> ourselves, and the re-marriage, reincorporation of dream reality
> to conscious reality, and the mention of this "psyche" thing.
> Even if it meant "perpetual promenading across forbidden zones".
Yet no one is denying - as Nik keeps insisting - that Breton and the others
"flirted" with the imaginative aspects of mysticism. This is obvious. But
Nik is being dsihonest because he uses this rather banal fact to bolster his
forays into magical tripe and talks of heaven, when he must know by now -
since we have endlessly discussed it - that the surrealists did not believe
in the divine, and that their interests in mysticism were entirely interests
in the results of an imaginative process, despite its being captured in the
divine. It is not the divinity which interest them - in fact it both bores
and infuriates them - but - for the most part - the products of that process
(masks, drawings, etc.) and the potential of certain rituals to call up the
marvelous. In effect they are attempting to re-co-opt these processes,
stealing them back from the religious/supernatural for use in the human
pursuit of the imaginative. This has been explicated to Nik (by now) dozens
of times, and his responses are always dishonest. He ignores what is said,
he does not respond to quoted passages from surrealist texts that address
this very issue in depth, he repeats the same mis-statements again and
again. I will admit that I do not know if he is being more dishonest with us
or with himself, but the difference isn't critical to me.
dmh
Nikolaus Maack
> The reason a mystical
> statement may parallel a surrealist (or a carpentery) statement is simple
> enough: they are both products of the imagination. But surrealism has
> denuded - quite purposefully - these products of their divinity.
You say this like it means something (it doesn't) and like you know what
you're talking about (you don't).
How does one "use" tarot cards and take away their "mystical power"? How
does one visit a medium and have a seance and make it not be magic -- even
if it is fraud? How does one write up their own horoscope without
believing in it, at least a little? How do you wander into a sweat lodge
and commune with spirits, all the while not believing in it? How does one
remove divinity? Do we remove it the same way we remove a tumour in the
brain?
I asked you this question before, and you had no answer. Do you have one
now? How does one play with tarot without believing in tarot?
Here's MY answer: one doesn't remove the divinity, exactly. Not during
the actual event itself.
When I undergo an experience, and I want to be completely open to it, to
fully experience it, that's when I have to flick "the nihilist switch" in
my brain. For the entirety of the experience, I must act and perceive the
world AS THOUGH "nothing is true and everything is true". That's the only
way I can see as much of the whole experience as I can -- to be entirely
open to it, to discard all bias, all previous experience. I have to
approach the experience as a child and a fool, without preconceptions.
I read a book recently called "The Power of Empathy : A Practical Guide to
Creating Intimacy, Self-Understanding, and Lasting Love in Your Life".
Despite the title that promises everything you ever desired, it's a good
book. And it actually described this notion that I've been speaking of
for so long. Blew my socks off that someone else out there understands
what I mean.
If you want to hear what a person has to say, said the author, then listen
to what they say with a total suspension of YOU. Shut off your biases,
and listen to them as closely as you can. This is, of course, impossible,
but get as close to that state as you can. Be them. Get them to explain
their position as best they can. Ask for clarification. Listen to their
story. Ask for background details. Try to digest their experience.
Become them. It's the Stanislovsky method of empathy.
Once you have digested their experience -- or as much of it as you can --
only THEN contemplate it critically and respond to it.
If you don't do it this way, you'll be criticizing preconceived notions,
and not what the other person is saying. If Bill is talking about being
against abortion, your brain will want to say, "Yeah, yeah, yeah. I know
what an anti-abortionist is like. Shut up, Bill."
This might lead you to assume things about Bill that aren't true. For
one, he might turn out not to be a Christian. Maybe he even thinks
abortions are okay, in certain circumstances. Maybe, in the end, he's
saying that abortion is something that is best avoided, if possible,
but really it's every woman's choice.
Without empathy, you might interrupt Bill and shriek, "Holy fuck, Bill!
How can you be AGAINST choice? Are you some kind of religious nut?"
Empathy of this kind -- shut off your preconceived notions -- is a learned
skill, by the way. Most people find it extremely difficult to let go of
their beliefs. For example, a woman who had an abortion might find it
extremely difficult to discuss the subject with a pro-lifer. She has too
much invested in the subject matter, and can't detach from it. It hurts
to talk about it. She'd probably be much better at listening to a subject
matter that isn't so intense for her.
As with empathy, so with an experience. You simply cannot use a tarot
deck with your critical thinking on. You're not going to experience it at
all if you're analyzing it AS IT HAPPENS.
"Okay, I'm putting down the card. Now I'm projecting my own imagination
on to the event as it takes place. Yes, I can see that my biases are in
action. I perceive the death card as being related to the death of my
childhood friend, which creates a sense of significance in the reading."
No. You won't GET IT if you analyze it as it happens.
Instead, shut off your critical thinking. Assume that ANYTHING IS
POSSIBLE. This, to me, is what "liberating the imagination" is all about.
Do the tarot reading, digesting as much of the experience as you can.
Only when it is over, analyze it critically.
To use a less mystical notion, it's like watching a movie. You can watch
it for fun, get sucked up into it, live out the movie, and be in it. Or
you can sit there, detached, analytical, criticizing sound and lighting
and all of that as it unrolls before you.
I know a number of people who report that, if they have to write an essay
on a novel, ideally they have to read it twice. Once for pleasure (to
experience it) and once for critical purposes (to analyze it).
In my mind, a "mystical experience" works the same way.
"Yeah, now that I look back at the tarot reading, I can see what I did. I
was projecting myself, my identity, into a random stimulus, which gave it
a sort of order. My mind was hungry for meaning, and so saw it there.
And somehow the lighting of the candle, and the silk cloth that wraps the
cards, and all of that -- it all added to the sense of "ritual" going on.
Interesting."
This reminds me of a feminist I knew. She told a group of us that she
knows pornography is wrong and objectifies women. She's always known
this. "One day," she said, "I decided to check up on this, so I went to a
porn store, looked around, and saw that I was right. Pornography is evil."
Which caused us all (men and women) to burst into laughter, much to her
surprise. She didn't exactly approach the concept of "porn" with an open
mind. She went there with a critical position, experienced it with a
critical position, and left with her critical position ingrained all the
more.
So you see, Dale, I understand the notion of "removing the divinity" from
an experience. But I also understand that, if I am going to actually
EXPERIENCE an experience, I have to be in it totally. Which means that,
during certain experiences, I have to at least allow for the divinity
while I'm undergoing them. Otherwise, I can't experience the experience.
If I recall correctly from past conversations, you insisted that one
simply cannot shut off one's critical thinking. You even suggested that
the ability to do so meant a person couldn't think critically at all. I
think that can be translated to the notion that YOU simply cannot shut off
YOUR critical thinking, and the idea of doing so gives you hives.
Am I wrong? Can you approach an experience with a childlike, foolish
sense of wonder? Are you able to give up control like that?
Nikolaus Maack
> The "non-concrete" _what_?
Non-concrete terminology -- there seems to be a silent war going on in
this newsgroup against that beloved literary technique, the metaphor. No,
no -- we cannot describe something as BEING LIKE something else. We must
describe it as it is, as it happened, in objective terms. Concrete terms.
When someone tells me that I cannot use a certain word -- be it you,
Cythera, telling me not to use "faggot" or "bitch", or Dale saying the
word "soul" is taboo -- I want to use the word more than ever. I love the
underdog, even if the underdog is just a scrap of letters strung together.
> And what is
> a "non-concrete" term anyway?
I'm using Barrett's language here. He came up with the phrase "concrete
language". I take it that he means words that describe an event in
tangible, sense-oriented description. In my mind, non-concrete terms
would be ones that don't necessarily refer to the senses, but use metaphor
and allusion to describe an experience.
For example, looking into the shiny tombstone of the dead twenty-five year
old and seeing my reflection in it made me feel as though I were a ghost,
standing before my own grave. I found the moment amusing, but bleak at
the same time. Like a moment in "Waiting for Godot", where I am
confronted with my own stupidity, fear, and silliness as I slowly realize
that Godot is never going to show up, but I don't know what else to do. I
keep waiting. Those were my feelings at Stephen Kirby's grave.
Saying I felt "as though I were a ghost" is a non-concrete description.
Making a reference to "Waiting for Godot" is also non-concrete. It is
unclear as to whether or not I believe in ghosts, reading the above. I
merely said I felt like a ghost. This is an imaginary experience. And
the emotional content of "Waiting for Godot" is added to my description.
The pathos, the comedy, the sadness of that play is something I am
"stealing" and attaching to my own description.
I'm getting this odd feeling from Barrett and Dale that metaphor that
contains religious imagery of any kind is somehow taboo to them. Saying,
"it made my soul shiver," to them, is loaded language, supporting
supersition and religion. It is therefore wrong. That strikes me as
totally nuts.
With Barrett, I'm starting to wonder if he is opposed to metaphor in
general. His talk about using conrete language seems to suggest that he
firmly believes in only describing the sense perceptions one has undergone.
> Isn't every human experience one that is within some artist's or
> writer's ability to describe?
I don't believe so. I'd say that language or art can only approximate an
experience. I felt "something". I want to describe it to you. I create
a set of symbols (words) to communicate this "something". No matter how
hard I try, these symbols (words) will fail to hit the mark. This is due,
in part, to my own inability to comprehend my experience, my "something",
in its totality. I can guess what specific qualities contributed to my
experience, but there is no way for me to catalogue ALL of them.
> But since you, as the observer, are attaching meaning to an event --
> which like all other events has _no intrinsic meaning_, -- then there
> is only as much, or as little, "infinite nature" as you ascribe.
True. Sort of.
You can live about a month without food. You can live three days without
water. Without meaning, you'd die in a couple of minutes.
The brain is a pattern finding machine. Once you find a pattern, you can
find patterns within patterns. We create the meaning we see in
experiences. We can say, "Oh, a unicorn, well, whatever," and then ignore
it. But once we see ANY meaning, it's bottomless. A unicorn? What does
that mean? Why did I see a unicorn? What brought that unicorn about?
It's almost impossible for the human mind NOT to find meaning. If you are
presented with random stimulus of some kind, be it white noise or ink
blots or a random smell, your brain will try to find meaning in it. To
say that we can "decide" how much "infinite meaning" we bring to an
experience is slightly misleading, for that reason. A human brain can
find meaning (a pattern) in almost anything.
I think that the only thing that stops an experience (or an object) from
having meaning is that we turn away from it. The longer we look, the more
meaning we see. Yes, we create the meaning, but I don't think that this
"meaning construction" is under our conscious control.
johnqadamsiii
Well i know that... My point was only that it goes to show such
a statement was derived from "mystical" texts, or whatever.
I make no mistake of trying to express there was an attempt to
embrace this kind of "brotherhood" you refer to or adhere to
silly "divine" teachings. But what i do maintain is that, from
the standpoint of exercising the imagination, there was
experimentation with other ideas that did NOT converge upon the
standard boundaries, as i maintain should indeed be the case
today. Yet, that does not necessitate involvement with silly
ideas and questionable dealings with "spirithood" - it might be
any-thing unconventional and unwavering in the cloud of static
thinking yet perhaps best capable of portraying our true
reality; which let's face it, we are still stabbing at with mere
wooden spoons today.
I know that it wasn't ONLY in the interest of masks and
drawings, but also a flirtation with different ideas - and
that's not quite anything to be alarmed about. And im not saying
those ideas were the ones that borderlined on laughable beliefs
and religious tradition either.
The idea of the psyche, collective unconcious, these sorts of
theories and ideas were drawn upon, obviously - but certainly
never in a superstitious manner.
Now with that being said, im still not certain Nik was
attempting to be dishonest throughout this thread. It just
seemed to me he was still trying to piece together - in his own
mind - what he was still learning about surrealism as well as
trying to transpose that against the backlight of his own life.
I know with religious concepts he HAS been stubborn in the
past, and maybe some of this was reactionary, or maybe i'm
partially wrong here. There is the nature of usenet for you then
and attempting to keep up with posts.
john
>The reason a mystical
>statement may parallel a surrealist (or a carpentery) statement
is simple
>enough: they are both products of the imagination. But
surrealism has
>denuded - quite purposefully - these products of their
-----------------------------------------------------------
barrett john erickson
> cythera (cyt...@my-deja.com) writes:
> > The "non-concrete" _what_?
>
> Non-concrete terminology -- there seems to be a silent war going on in
> this newsgroup against that beloved literary technique, the metaphor. No,
> no -- we cannot describe something as BEING LIKE something else. We must
> describe it as it is, as it happened, in objective terms. Concrete terms.
ah, excuse me, i don't mean to embarass you but seem to have overlooked
something and your lack of comprehension is showing.
> When someone tells me that I cannot use a certain word -- be it you,
> Cythera, telling me not to use "faggot" or "bitch", or Dale saying the
> word "soul" is taboo -- I want to use the word more than ever. I love the
> underdog, even if the underdog is just a scrap of letters strung together.
>
> > And what is
> > a "non-concrete" term anyway?
>
> I'm using Barrett's language here. He came up with the phrase "concrete
> language". I take it that he means words that describe an event in
> tangible, sense-oriented description.
> [...]
no, Nik. i was mirroring _your_ usage of the term and only for the purposes
of countering your point.
my post, including the bit quoted from you ---
>>>
> Obviously I disagree with you. I think there are a class of words that
> struggle to describe experiences that are beyond language. These words
> can sound hollow -- and are often used in hollow ways -- but that's
> because they describe emotions and feelings that we have difficulty
> pinning down in concrete language.
>
"concrete language" is only inadequate to the task for those who haven't
actually explored the experience, but merely labeled it as beyond the norm
and dumped it into a junk drawer with all the other stuff they've lazily
tagged "beyond language" because they aren't up to the explorations
necessary to deploy language to its fullest extent.
what you refer to are not "experiences that are beyond language". they are
experiences some (most?) people fail to integrate into their reality because
they have become accustomed to thinking of them as in some way "unreal".
they choose to think of them as "unreal" because they'd rather surrender to
the poverty of their every day living as "reality" than risk the upheaval of
challanging their most cherished assumptions in search of an imaginatively
enhanced reality.
this is a personal failure of the imagination, not a characteristic of the
experience.
<<<
and note that this is, in fact, as much a defense of metaphor as it is a
rejection of the kind of vague mysticisms you were offering.
Dale Houstman
>
>
> and note that this is, in fact, as much a defense of metaphor as it is a
> rejection of the kind of vague mysticisms you were offering.
>
>
and metaphors is that both terms must be "concrete" to be effective. Thus to
say "daddy is a bear" (while not a particularly stunning example of the
process) beats all hollow "beauty is smooth" as an example of metaphor. The
fact is poetry is a system of specifics, not vague intimations. Although
both the sensations (in creation and reading) and the "themes" involved may
be transcendent and on the peripherals of language, it is through the use of
the "concrete" that such states are evoked.
This is so basic a truth about poetics, that Nik's miscomprehension of it
puts him firmly in the "I am proud to be stupid" box. It's an almost
stunning idiocy.
dmh
Nikolaus Maack
proclaims his idiocy in all the stupid things he stupidly says.
Furthermore, he clearly lacks any clear understanding of surrealism
because he is stupid. This stupidity, which he demonstrates on a regular
basis, is stupid, not to mention idiotic, and is brought about because,
stupidly, he has so many misunderstandings in regards to surrealism.
Perhaps if Dale weren't such a stupid idiot, he wouldn't have so many
misunderstandings regarding surrealism. Alas, he is stupid, and so his
stupid idiocy continues to stupify us all.
Nik
"Dale Houstman" (dm...@citilink.com) writes (as usual):
> This is so basic a truth about poetics, that Nik's miscomprehension of it
> puts him firmly in the "I am proud to be stupid" box. It's an almost
> stunning idiocy.
Nikolaus Maack
> something and your lack of comprehension is showing.
Oh well. Shit happens. Yes, I do seem to have misunderstood you, and
attributed my language to you.
> and note that this is, in fact, as much a defense of metaphor as it is a
> rejection of the kind of vague mysticisms you were offering.
Okay. I'm glad you cleared that up. However, could you be more specific
in your detailing of what aspects of mysticism we should avoid and why?
For example, I suspect Dale would have kittens if a surrealist said:
"I feel it in the depths of my soul."
I suspect -- I could be wrong -- that he would be upset because he would
see this as a (subtle?) supporting of religion, which (supposedly)
oppresses the imagination.
It strikes me as a fairly innocent metaphor that may or may not indicate
that the author believes in souls. If Dale can be believed, he sees the
very use of the word "soul" as indicative of a misunderstanding of
surrealism -- which strikes me as an excessively militant stance to take.
If we even speak the word "soul" without mocking it, we're out of the
"club"?
I find it more than slightly bizarre that anyone would agree with Dale on
this. To speak colloquially -- anyone who buys this must be as anal as a
weekly proctologist convention.
Do you, Barrett, see the use of such expressions as contributing to
oppression, and to a misunderstanding of surrealism?
Parry
I can’t vouch for Nik’s honesty; in fact, the question of his honesty is
the springboard for much of the group’s conflict. I don’t see that the
latest round of criticism is contingent on the argument you present
below. I don’t recall that Nik even made this argument. He has argued
that authoritarian Christianity -- great colonizer of the imagination --
is no more harmful than tarot or astrology, and suggests that the
surrealists were closet mystics. I’ve already argued the first point and
will overlook the second in favour of your more sensible appraisal.
> And afterall, let us not forget the
> importance of dream and reality and the early influences of
> surrealism, like Jung, which in a roundabout way he was
> attempting to point up.
>
> Consider that Breton maintained (italics) this about surrealism:
>
> "The idea of surrealism tends simply towards the total
> recuperation of our psychic strength by a means which is nothing
> less than a vertiginous descent into ourselves, the systematic
> illumination of hidden places and the progressive darkening of
> others, perpetual promenading across forbidden zones; and there
> is no danger of it coming to an end while man is still able to
> distinguish an animal from a flame or a stone."
>
> also consider barrett's signature qoute which is quite similar
> to this:
>
> "True, without falsehood, certain and most true, that which is
> above is the same as that which is below, and that which is
> below is the same as that which is above, for the performance of
> miracles of the One Thing. And as all things are from the One,
> by the meditation of One, so all things have their birth from
> this One Thing by adaptation. "
>
> Thus, i don't feel there is any misaligning of surrealism in
> bringing up the mystical aspect or previous flirtings WITH such
> mysticism, because quite simply there was such exploration in
> the attempt to find fulfilling answers about the nature of
> ourselves, and the re-marriage, reincorporation of dream reality
> to conscious reality, and the mention of this "psyche" thing.
> Even if it meant "perpetual promenading across forbidden zones".
>
> So throw me to the paper lions for being honest, if you must.
>
> john
Contrary to your suggestion that the “there exists a certain point of
the mind” passage was “derived from ‘mystical’ texts” (as you said in a
follow-up to Dale’s post), I should think Breton was drawing on Hegel’s
dialectics, and that his later references to Hermes resulted from a
search for affinities among ancient writers. That is to say, for
instance, that surrealism did not derive from alchemy, but one could
sift the writings of alchemists for evidence of surrealism. (It’s worth
remembering, too, that the alchemists were on the wrong side of the
European power structure when the Church was in control, and were hunted
down.)
I think it’s overstating the situation to say surrealism “flirted” with
mysticism. The “supremacy of matter over thought” is recognized, so that
pretty much quashes mysticism. That’s not to say that the paraphernalia
of mysticism --- say, an Ouija board -- can’t be brought into
imaginative play. But the matter of whether there is an order to the
universe that speaks through such paraphernalia is a long dead question;
the question for surrealism is how to erase the lacunae between desire,
thought and reality.
(Once, for one of those role-playing “murder mysteries,” we used an
Ouija board as a bit of set design. A woman asked me, “Is that a *real*
Ouija board?” I joked that it was only an amazing facsimile, but she
kept asking me about it until I realized her question was earnest.)
johnqadamsiii
It may be that he drew from Hegel, indirectly, as that idea
isn't exactly new. In fact it could probably be said to
indirectly draw all the way from back to Democritus and before
as well, with the notion to resolve the contradiction between
the object and subject.
>That is to say, for
>instance, that surrealism did not derive from alchemy, but one
could
>sift the writings of alchemists for evidence of surrealism.
(It’s worth
>remembering, too, that the alchemists were on the wrong side of
the
>European power structure when the Church was in control, and
were hunted
>down.)
I'm pretty certain i wasn't intending to say it was derived from
alchemy. In fact, my point was that ideas were embraced from
many different places - those found useful, and applied into a
new conglomerative matrix of it's own.
>I think it’s overstating the situation to say
surrealism “flirted” with
>mysticism. The “supremacy of matter over thought” is
recognized, so that
>pretty much quashes mysticism.
Nay, i thought there was some recognition that such a
contradiction was outmoded. I cant think of a phrase that sounds
more disheartening than that to hear now! Or are you refering to
more of a mind of matter power that doesn't exist and this is
the foundation of mystical ideology? What of the role of
theconscious mind (or cognition) to that supreme material world?
When "objectively" considering material reality, is there room
to hide the subjective, or is it too a part, or if anything, is
it all you really know?
>That’s not to say that the paraphernalia
>of mysticism --- say, an Ouija board -- can’t be brought into
>imaginative play. But the matter of whether there is an order
to the
>universe that speaks through such paraphernalia is a long dead
question;
>the question for surrealism is how to erase the lacunae between
desire,
>thought and reality.
The oui-ja board hasn't much to do with the matter of mysticism
or metaphysics in my opinion - perhaps that term merely serves
to oversimplify with such usage. Terms like the psyche and
collective unconscious probably are more relevant, however.
Im not sure why mysticism and related philosophies like
metaphysics are so vastly distorted here and dressed with new-
age garble and treated phobically - perhaps the word is just too
widely used nowadays. What is wrong with extending the mind to
consider those things which lie beyond the shortcomings of
science? Would it surprise you to know that Heisenberg,
Schroedinger, Einstein, De Broglie, Pauli, Jeans, Plank,
Eddington, all considered themselves mystics? Some of the most
important scientific minds of last century. Now, im not saying
that i completely agree with all of their particular ideas and
perspectives in these matters. But, they were all willing to
atleast step back and peer at the universe from a different
perspective, for they knew well to what extent science was
limited in describing reality, and in fact that in addition to
their strong imaganitive, curious, intellectual nature
contributed to that willingness. Where did their mothers go so
wrong, I wonder?!
>(Once, for one of those role-playing “murder mysteries,” we
used >an Ouija board as a bit of set design. A woman asked
me, “Is >that a *real*
ouija board?” I joked that it was only an amazing facsimile,
>but she kept asking me about it until I realized her question
>was earnest.)
SO...I assume it wasn't one of those glow in the dark models,
which probably attract more interesting spirits.
john
Nikolaus Maack
> I can’t vouch for Nik’s honesty; in fact, the question of his honesty is
> the springboard for much of the group’s conflict.
Occasionally I get bored of trying to communicate, and just dance with
words. This irritates the people in this newsgroup who don't know how to
dance, and who can't tell the difference between a mumble and a mambo.
> He has argued
> that authoritarian Christianity -- great colonizer of the imagination --
> is no more harmful than tarot or astrology, and suggests that the
> surrealists were closet mystics.
Uh, wait. Hold on there. You've got me slightly wrong.
I am opposed to "authoritarian Christianity" -- as are many Christians. I
don't like the idea that the church elders swoop down on us and burn all
the witches, or force us to believe in Jesus, or wear dresses that go down
to the ankles. I tend to view almost all organized religions as rather
silly and evil. They tend to promote the "sheep mentality" that many
atheists complain about.
I have seen texts written by Christians, on the other hand, that emphasize
a "personal relationship with Christ". What this means is that a
worshipper has a direct relationship to his God, and does not have to go
through a church elder. There is no "oppressive authority" in this model.
Just Jim and his friend Jesus, without an intermediary. This is important
because if your church elder is your access to the voice of God, the elder
will inevitably bully his "lessers". He will express his bias as "divine
inspiration". He will try to make everyone into sheep.
But if the connection is between you and your God and it's nobody else's
goddamn business, the "sheep mentality" can be tossed out the window.
Not all Christians are the same. Some want to huddle in the herd, with a
whole bunch of like-minded simpletons, so that none of them have to think.
Other Christians use the symbol of "Christ" to guide themselves through
the day. They think critically, if based more on intuition than reason.
Unfortunately, what I see on a regular basis are atheists lumping all
Christians into one homogenous, unthinking, sheep-like blob. They're all
stupid, they're all evil, they're all ignorant -- those nasty, nasty
Christians!
I beg to differ. No two Christans are alike in the same way that no two
black people, Jewish people, two women, two ANY KIND OF HUMAN are alike.
I see nothing wrong with Christian imagery. In fact, I find the myth of
it rather appealing. If someone held a gun to my head and said, "Believe
in Jesus or die!" I'd like to think I'd let the bastard pull the trigger.
However, no one is holding a gun to my head, so I feel free to play with
Christian symbols in the same way I'd play with tarot symbols.
I think that saying Christian symbols are somehow "evil and oppressive"
gives them more power than they deserve. In my mind, tarot symbols and
Christian symbols are equal. One can find meaning and guidance in both.
It's true that no one has ever killed another person in the name of tarot
-- that I know of -- but that could change. The symbols aren't guilty of
being oppressive, it's just that some people have used the symbols in an
oppressive way.
As for surrealists being "closet mystics" -- I wouldn't phrase it like
that. I'd say they were pretty much out of the closet.
Parry
> >
> > Parry <pa...@zxOMIT.mail.com> wrote:
> > Contrary to your suggestion that the "there exists a certain
> > point of the mind" passage was "derived from 'mystical'
> > texts" (as you said in a follow-up to Dale's post), I
> > should think Breton was drawing on Hegel's dialectics,
> > and that his later references to Hermes resulted from a
> > search for affinities among ancient writers.
>
> idea isn't exactly new. In fact it could probably be said
> to indirectly draw all the way from back to Democritus
> and before as well, with the notion to resolve the
> contradiction between the object and subject.
>
> > from alchemy, but one could sift the writings of
> > alchemists for evidence of surrealism. (It's worth
> > remembering, too, that the alchemists were on the wrong
> > side of the European power structure when the Church
> > was in control, and were hunted down.)
>
> derived from alchemy. In fact, my point was that ideas
> were embraced from many different places - those
> found useful, and applied into a new conglomerative
> matrix of it's own.
I didn't think that was what you intended, even though that's what you
wrote. It was my turn to be picky! But in my memory of surrealist
history, the matrix was already in place -- born from the combustion of
dadaism, Romantic poetry, and Hegel -- before the search for supportive
evidence of the kind Hermes offers.
> > I think it's overstating the situation to say surrealism
> > "flirted" with mysticism. The "supremacy of matter over
> > thought" is recognized, so that pretty much quashes
> > mysticism.
>
> Nay, i thought there was some recognition that such a
> contradiction was outmoded. I cant think of a phrase
> that sounds more disheartening than that to hear now!
> Or are you refering to more of a mind of matter power
> that doesn't exist and this is the foundation of mystical
> ideology? What of the role of the conscious mind (or
> cognition) to that supreme material world? When
> "objectively" considering material reality, is there
> room to hide the subjective, or is it too a part, or if
> anything, is it all you really know?
Breton used the phrase when talking about surrealism's transition from
"absolute idealism" to "dialectical materialism." I took a mild liberty
with it (and why not? Breton did the same with Lautreamont's "poetry
must be made by all"). I meant it in the traditional sense you
mentioned, re the foundation of mystical ideology. Of course, mind is
matter so in this sense it is a false contradiction. Considered
objectively, the “subject” is a FORTRAN card full of punch-holes.
> > That's not to say that the paraphernalia of mysticism ---
> > say, an Ouija board -- can't be brought into imaginative
> > play. But the matter of whether there is an order to the
> > universe that speaks through such paraphernalia is a long
> > dead question; the question for surrealism is how to
> > erase the lacunae between desire, thought and reality.
>
> The oui-ja board hasn't much to do with the matter of
> mysticism or metaphysics in my opinion - perhaps that
> term merely serves to oversimplify with such usage.
> Terms like the psyche and collective unconscious
> probably are more relevant, however.
>
> Im not sure why mysticism and related philosophies
> like metaphysics are so vastly distorted here and
> dressed with new- age garble and treated phobically -
> perhaps the word is just too widely used nowadays.
I don't see the distortion. The way the word "mysticism" is used here --
in a thread sparked by talk of tarot and astrology -- is according to
its common dictionary definition: "belief in the attainment, through
contemplation, of truths inaccessible to the understanding; system of
prayers etc. designed to achieve this; (coll.) vague irrational
religious or occult notions." Sounds new-age thingy to me. But I agree
that terms like “psyche,” “collective unconscious,” or even “soul” can
be used without meaning “supernatural,” if the interlocutors agree on
this in advance.
> What is wrong with extending the mind to consider
> those things which lie beyond the shortcomings of
> science?
We probably have another semantic argument brewing here. One can say
“everything is science” just as another can say “everything is
philosophy.” To me, science is an approach based on the study and
reflection of specific problems, and letting evidence speak for itself
even when it defies the weight of accumulated authority. Not all science
is "hard" science, and the "scientific method" is a bit of a myth. The
basic tenets of science are flexible and versatile enough that they can
be applied to any problem, so I don't know that there are things beyond
the reach of science. Even for a seeming philosophic question like "what
came before creation" scientists are offering theories and searching for
means of verification.
> Would it surprise you to know that Heisenberg,
> Schroedinger, Einstein, De Broglie, Pauli, Jeans,
> Plank, Eddington, all considered themselves mystics?
No. When it comes to things in which a person may believe, nothing
surprises me. And I doubt that each of these people meant the same thing
when they used the word to describe themselves -- if indeed they did. In
the case of Einstein, for instance, religionists have deliberately
misused his words to make it sound as if he were in their camp. On the
other hand, I've noticed scientists who subscribe to a sort of
legalistic deism, by which they can say they believe in god (meaning
nature or whatever), just not a "personal" god. So they get to have it
both ways.
> Some of the most important scientific minds of last
> century. Now, im not saying that i completely agree
> with all of their particular ideas and perspectives in
> these matters. But, they were all willing to at least step
> back and peer at the universe from a different
> perspective, for they knew well to what extent science
> was limited in describing reality, and in fact that in
> addition to their strong imaganitive, curious,
> intellectual nature contributed to that willingness.
> Where did their mothers go so wrong, I wonder?!
It probably has more to do with memes than moms. Understanding that
knowledge is limited does not mean that the unknown areas get to be
filled in with mystical bilge. The surrealists maintained an open
perspective by submitting to chance. Breton tells the story of Philippe
Soupault going door-to-door to ask landlords “Does Philippe Soupault
live here?”
> > (Once, for one of those role-playing "murder mysteries,"
> > we used an Ouija board as a bit of set design. A woman
> > asked me, "Is that a *real* ouija board?" I joked that it
> > was only an amazing facsimile, but she kept asking me
> > about it until I realized her question was earnest.)
>
> SO...I assume it wasn't one of those glow in the dark
> models, which probably attract more interesting
> spirits.
Or radioactive ones. I wonder whatever happened to that Ouija board. I
don’t remember throwing it out, yet I have no idea where it is. Kind
of... spooky. It would make a nice bread board if I could find it.
Parry
>
> Parry (pa...@zxOMITmail.com) writes:
> > He has argued
> > that authoritarian Christianity -- great colonizer of the imagination --
> > is no more harmful than tarot or astrology, and suggests that the
> > surrealists were closet mystics.
>
I was going by your sentence: “[Breton] couldn't let himself touch
Christianity -- seeing it as vile brainwashing -- but really, in the
end, it is no more poisonous than tarot or astrology...”
> I am opposed to "authoritarian Christianity" -- as are many Christians. I
> don't like the idea that the church elders swoop down on us and burn all
> the witches, or force us to believe in Jesus, or wear dresses that go down
> to the ankles. I tend to view almost all organized religions as rather
> silly and evil. They tend to promote the "sheep mentality" that many
> atheists complain about.
>
> I have seen texts written by Christians, on the other hand, that emphasize
> a "personal relationship with Christ". What this means is that a
> worshipper has a direct relationship to his God, and does not have to go
> through a church elder. There is no "oppressive authority" in this model.
> Just Jim and his friend Jesus, without an intermediary. This is important
> because if your church elder is your access to the voice of God, the elder
> will inevitably bully his "lessers". He will express his bias as "divine
> inspiration". He will try to make everyone into sheep.
There’s a built-in “oppressive authority” in monotheistic, messianic
religion. The eldest church elder is its putative founder Jesus who
indeed claimed the voice of God and wanted to turn people into his
sheep.
> But if the connection is between you and your God and it's nobody else's
> goddamn business, the "sheep mentality" can be tossed out the window.
In some cases, far more dangerous than the Church sheep is the loner who
has a personal relationship with God. For instance, that guy who became
a serial killer of prostitutes after watching Cecil B. DeMille’s “The
Ten Commandments.”
> Not all Christians are the same. Some want to huddle in the herd, with a
> whole bunch of like-minded simpletons, so that none of them have to think.
> Other Christians use the symbol of "Christ" to guide themselves through
> the day. They think critically, if based more on intuition than reason.
Anyone who thinks the “teachings” of the New Testament has relevance to
modern life is a flake.
> Unfortunately, what I see on a regular basis are atheists lumping all
> Christians into one homogenous, unthinking, sheep-like blob. They're all
> stupid, they're all evil, they're all ignorant -- those nasty, nasty
> Christians!
Most people who call themselves “christian” don’t actually take their
religion very seriously. I have actually met and talked to christians
and will say that some of them are quite decent people, in their way.
> I beg to differ. No two Christans are alike in the same way that no two
> black people, Jewish people, two women, two ANY KIND OF HUMAN are alike.
No atheist ever says all christians are exactly the same, or that
they’re all ignorant. If god-belief were simply a matter of ignorance,
it could be easily fixed. But, sadly, it grows from a mesh of psychology
(fear, ego gratification, etc.), social conformity, ignorance, and
mental illness.
> I see nothing wrong with Christian imagery. In fact, I find the myth of
> it rather appealing. If someone held a gun to my head and said, "Believe
> in Jesus or die!" I'd like to think I'd let the bastard pull the trigger.
> However, no one is holding a gun to my head, so I feel free to play with
> Christian symbols in the same way I'd play with tarot symbols.
>
> I think that saying Christian symbols are somehow "evil and oppressive"
> gives them more power than they deserve.
I don’t recall anyone here making the argument that symbols are evil and
oppressive. I do seem to recall it being pointed out that resort to
these symbols indicates a bankrupt imagination. I personally try to use
christian imagery only in ways that promote a general disdain for
religious beliefs. Your advocacy of such imagery only gives it an
undeserved lease on life, and for no better reason than that as
“metaphor” it impresses the sorts of minds that are impressed by this
sort of thing -- admittedly a sizable chunk of the consumer audience.
And I don’t think Cythera’s essential question -- why do you (Nik)
persist in pushing these symbols on this newsgroup? -- has been
answered.
Nikolaus Maack
to read this.
Parry (pa...@zxOMITmail.com) writes:
> There’s a built-in oppressive authority in monotheistic, messianic
> religion. The eldest church elder is its putative founder Jesus who
> indeed claimed the voice of God and wanted to turn people into his
> sheep.
Not all Christians perceive Christ to be the "church elder" who has all
the answers. Much like some Buddhists say Buddha merely points in a
certain direction, so does Christ. Must like Breton, Freud, Jung, L. Ron
Hubbard, feminist leaders, capitalists, socialists, anarchists -- they all
point in a particular direction and say, "This is the way to go."
I suspect you've been inundated with loud Christians who say "Jesus is
Lord" and leave it at that. It clearly doesn't have to be that way.
People in here, for example, say Breton had some neat ideas and points in
an interesting direction. The same can be said for Jesus.
You like to think that there is only one way to deal with this Jesus
fellow. Which is a bit over-simplified.
I'll agree with you on one thing -- Jesus, in general, is badly misused by
many. He's a myth, no more dangerous than Zeus or Odin. But he's misused
by a lot of people.
> In some cases, far more dangerous than the Church sheep is the loner who
> has a personal relationship with God. For instance, that guy who became
> a serial killer of prostitutes after watching Cecil B. DeMille’s “The
> Ten Commandments.”
This is a laughable example. Some loners watch "Taxi Driver" and try to
shoot the president. Some watch "The Ten Commandments".
> Anyone who thinks the “teachings” of the New Testament has relevance to
> modern life is a flake.
What a silly thing to say. And you go on to say that no atheist portrays
all christians as the same? Silly person.
> No atheist ever says all christians are exactly the same, or that
> they’re all ignorant. If god-belief were simply a matter of ignorance,
> it could be easily fixed. But, sadly, it grows from a mesh of psychology
> (fear, ego gratification, etc.), social conformity, ignorance, and
> mental illness.
Jung speculates that the reason people become alcoholics and drug addicts
is because they're on a quest for meaning. Their lives are empty. In a
quest for meaning, identity, pleasure, ecstasy, understanding, etc, they
use drugs and booze. Some might say, what these people are lacking is
religion.
Religion -- or MEANING of some kind, not necessarily religious -- is
essential. Yes, some people will use their religion much like a drug
addict would use heroin. They'll abuse the church, and use it to define
their life instead of to guide it.
> I do seem to recall it being pointed out that resort to
> these [Christian] symbols indicates a bankrupt imagination.
I don't see why. I'm willing to try all symbols. I try to paint with as
many colours as I can. I see no reason to reject a particular colour.
> Your advocacy of such imagery only gives it an
> undeserved lease on life, and for no better reason than that as
> “metaphor” it impresses the sorts of minds that are impressed by this
> sort of thing -- admittedly a sizable chunk of the consumer audience.
Boy, that's a nice try at an insult. The symbols are there and they
interest me. It has little to do with my "consumer audience".
> And I don’t think Cythera’s essential question -- why do you (Nik)
> persist in pushing these symbols on this newsgroup? -- has been
> answered.
I think the general dislike in this newsgroup for these symbols are
irrational. I see them as just as useful as any other set of symbols. I
like to promote the notion of an open mind. Try everything twice, just in
case you do it wrong the first time. Even if it doesn't work for you,
admit it can work for others.
What I get back from you people is, "Christianity is stupid." Sure, it
can be. Surrealism can also be stupid. All ideologies can be stupid.
Nik
--
"Reason is and ought to be the slave of passions." -- David Hume
johnqadamsiii
transition from "absolute idealism" to "dialectical
materialism." I took a mild liberty with it (and why not? Breton
did the same with Lautreamont's "poetry must be made by all"). I
meant it in the traditional sense you mentioned, re the
foundation of mystical ideology. Of course, mind is matter so in
this sense it is a false contradiction. Considered objectively,
the “subject” is a FORTRAN card full of punch-holes. >>
Ok, that was taken from Breton's "What is Surrealism?" I
believe. And actually my last message had a typo, supposed to
having been written as "mind over matter", not of. Now, fortran
punch hole cards - that is indeed a good comparison! As fortran
(esp. punch cards)is such an old and crusty language/model. Why
should we NOT be reduced to punch cards, i ask?
<<I don't see the distortion. The way the word "mysticism" is
used here -- in a thread sparked by talk of tarot and astrology -
- is according to its common dictionary definition: "belief in
the attainment, through contemplation, of truths inaccessible to
the understanding; system of prayers etc. designed to achieve
this; (coll.) vague irrational religious or occult notions."
Sounds new-age thingy to me. But I agree that terms
like “psyche,” “collective unconscious,” or even “soul” can be
used without meaning “supernatural,” if the interlocutors agree
on this in advance. >>
Well, one can't expect the dictionary to set us in the correct
path alone. Its a matter of using judgement. Like i say, the
term by now is so over-used that there are several meanings and
practices - eastern mysticism, western, rosicrucians, etc. Since
my mother was a Rosicrucian for a long while i have a little
more first hand knowledge of the more "serious" side of mystical
groups.
What id like to point out is that if someone uses the term
mystic it may not necessarily be the equivalent of new-agery.
<<We probably have another semantic argument brewing here. One
can say
“everything is science” just as another can say “everything is
philosophy.” To me, science is an approach based on the study
and reflection of specific problems, and letting evidence speak
for itself even when it defies the weight of accumulated
authority. Not all science is "hard" science, and
the "scientific method" is a bit of a myth. The basic tenets of
science are flexible and versatile enough that they can be
applied to any problem, so I don't know that there are things
beyond the reach of science. Even for a seeming philosophic
question like "what came before creation" scientists are
offering theories and searching for means of verification.>>
I wouldn't make the mistake of saying either of those -
everything is science, or philosophy. And I am not berating the
scientific method, that i think is obvious. As a means of
experimentation and processing of information it is often most
invaluable to us. As a means of representing reality it
certainly does have its limitations. In fact, quantum mechanics
false short in even the simplest of predictions. We simply are
adjusted to the idea of concrete reality being right at the
touch of our fingertips, living in a static world where the only
thing that isn't is our constructed idea of time in seconds,
hours, and days which our lives are wrapped around. The earth is
still the center of the universe, the microbe on a dust particle
that it is.
Every object is composed of smaller and smaller particles which
follow a wave pattern or vibration, yet they are elusive upon
closer inspection. Can science handle any problem? No, currently
that is a myth. In time, maybe. Of course science itself would
have, or had to have, changed drastically by then. What about
pre-big bang? The only thing i can imagine to surface are more
and more theories. Every good scientist knows his limitations
and thinks around them with an open yet evaluating mind. When
those problems that do arise which are most perplexing and
unsolvable, then one may be forced to choose an alternative
perspective, temporary or long-term.
<<Would it surprise you to know that Heisenberg,
Schroedinger, Einstein, De Broglie, Pauli, Jeans, Plank,
Eddington, all considered themselves mystics?
No. When it comes to things in which a person may believe,
nothing surprises me. And I doubt that each of these people
meant the same thing when they used the word to describe
themselves -- if indeed they did. In the case of Einstein, for
instance, religionists have deliberately misused his words to
make it sound as if he were in their camp. On the other hand,
I've noticed scientists who subscribe to a sort of legalistic
deism, by which they can say they believe in god (meaning nature
or whatever), just not a "personal" god. So they get to have it
both ways. >>
Why take my word for it? Look them up sometime. I could probably
throw Dirac, Bohm, Sherrington, and a few others in as well. It
doesn't mean they all thought along the same exact personal
lines, of course, nor ones i might agree on.
Here is an example though, without trying to force their
comments into a particular belief camp -
Einstein: "I maintain that the cosmic religious feeling is the
strongest and noblest motive for scientific research"
Bohm: We could think of the mystic as coming into contact with
tremendous depths of the subtlety of matter or of mind, whatever
you want to call it.
Heisenberg: The bridge of initially unordered data of experience
to the Ideas is seen by Pauli in certain primeval images pre-
existing in the soul ... These primeval images – here Pauli is
largely in agreement with Jung – should not be located in
conscious or related to specific rationally formulable ideas. It
is a question, rather, of forms belonging to the unconscious
region of the soul, images of powerful emotional content, which
are beheld, as it were, pictorially ... in which understanding
has found its place in various degrees and kinds, even in
knowledge of the word of God.
And later,
Hawking: We still believe that the universe should be logical
and beautiful; we just dropped the word "God".
Those are just a few quick references - not exactly what
describes each of their notions of the world. But what i want to
express is that I think many of these individuals realized the
elegance behind the day to day reality we sometimes call matter,
which again can be said to be nothing more than the
superimposition of waves into elusive particles.
But it isn't my concern to try to marry these two together
(mysticism and science), especially in the same arena. As
stated, i merely wanted to explain that the term is a little
more encompassing than oui ja boards, tarot cards, and outright
stupidity. For those reasons and more i try to avoid using the
term mysticism, myself.
<<It probably has more to do with memes than moms. Understanding
that knowledge is limited does not mean that the unknown areas
get to be filled in with mystical bilge.>>
Right, who likes bilge anyway. But then again, the unknown areas
equally need not be filled by unrealistic reductionistic
thinkers.
<<The surrealists maintained an open perspective by submitting
to chance. Breton tells the story of Philippe Soupault going
door-to-door to ask landlords “Does Philippe Soupault live
here?” >>
He very well could have been on to something with that.
<<Or radioactive ones. I wonder whatever happened to that Ouija
board. I don’t remember throwing it out, yet I have no idea
where it is. Kind of... spooky. It would make a nice bread board
if I could find it.
-- Parry>>
That gives me chills on my spleen.
Dale Houstman
"johnqadamsiii" <johnqadams...@yahoo.com.invalid> wrote in message
> Not all science is "hard" science, and the "scientific method" is a bit of
a myth.
But in what fashion? It seems to me that the basic foundation of the
method - hypothesis - testing - theory - is a sound one that has flexibility
built in to it stance. In fact it appears to be very close to the way we all
find our way through the world. The notion of hypothesis even leaves quite a
space for plain "intuition" and guesswork of the most bizarre sort, and this
is to be encouraged. It is the other two steps which (somewhat) solidify
comprehensions (until they cease to work, come up against facts that are not
explained, etc.). It seems to me that science does not - in any conceivable
way - limit the movement of the human mind through rather extreme arenas.
Such "dreaming" is not only encouraged by the method, but (as we have
discussed before) quite often the basis of discovery. Of course - these
dreams have to tested. But I don't think it's a coincidence that so many
scientists are readers of, or writers of science fiction, which is a sort of
scientific dream chamber, either exploiting scienctific notions to create
that "sense of wonder," or to test the limits of any idea in a dramatic
form. I suppose some scientists must be frustrated - at times - by the fact
that they can't dream time travel into reality, and so fiction is an outlet
for that sort of impulse. And - of course - many scientists (I suppose this
is particularly true of the 60s) as they passed their "peak" moments,
descend into rather irritating mystic states that they still attempt to pass
off as science. I am not sure what I'm getting at necessatily, but it seems
to be about this "membrane" between the pursuit of "cold facts" and the warm
release into dramatic ecstasies. Science fiction allows much of this process
to occur without corrupting the basic methodical approach of the scientist,
because it is admittedly a "game" of sorts, while research into the vast
"intelligence" of dolphins might be considered - by this time - a horrendous
embolism of the same desire to escape the method and "jumpstart" that
"magical moment."
>
> I wouldn't make the mistake of saying either of those -
> everything is science, or philosophy. And I am not berating the
> scientific method, that i think is obvious. As a means of
> experimentation and processing of information it is often most
> invaluable to us. As a means of representing reality it
> certainly does have its limitations. In fact, quantum mechanics
> false short in even the simplest of predictions.
But I wouldn't call the method a limitation in that scientists expect it to
be tested over time; most science realizes that theories might be merely
stepping stones to a more comprehensive notion, or jury-rigged explanations
that cover as many observational processes as possible. I am not certain
that a "failure of prediction" points to the limitations of the method, as
the method may be (assisted by its practitioners!) "attempting" to uncover
that very unpredictablity. Of course, admitting to unpredictablity isn't "in
the blood" so much, but these infections start small.
> Every object is composed of smaller and smaller particles which
> follow a wave pattern or vibration, yet they are elusive upon
> closer inspection. Can science handle any problem? No, currently
> that is a myth. In time, maybe. Of course science itself would
> have, or had to have, changed drastically by then. What about
> pre-big bang? The only thing i can imagine to surface are more
> and more theories. Every good scientist knows his limitations
> and thinks around them with an open yet evaluating mind. When
> those problems that do arise which are most perplexing and
> unsolvable, then one may be forced to choose an alternative
> perspective, temporary or long-term.
Pre-big bang strikes me as unsolvable, but intriguing since it lends itself
to such flights of imagination. One can say it plain, that such a subject is
beyond resolving, and probably be very safe, and more pointedly accurate
about the subject. But one shouldn't perhaps limit this area for what is
mainly scientific play of a sophisticated sort. It is not impossible to
think of us seeing the very furthest object given the right equipment, but I
think pre-big bang is pre-sensory, pre-cognition, and thus quite beyond the
ken. At this point one might say all scientific consideration fades into
mysticism, although most scientists are more than willing to admit that they
are dealing with projections.
But what do I know?
dmh
johnqadamsiii
<<But in what fashion? It seems to me that the basic foundation
of the method - hypothesis - testing - theory - is a sound one
that has flexibility built in to it stance. In fact it appears
to be very close to the way we all find our way through the
world. The notion of hypothesis even leaves quite a space for
plain "intuition" and guesswork of the most bizarre sort, and
this is to be encouraged>>
I think you were responding to this: "Can science handle any
problem? No, currently that is a myth. In time, maybe. Of course
science itself would have, or had to have, changed drastically
by then. What about pre-big bang? The only thing i can imagine
to surface are more and more theories. Every good scientist
knows his limitations and thinks around them with an open yet
evaluating mind. When those problems that do arise which are
most perplexing and unsolvable, then one may be forced to choose
an alternative perspective, temporary or long-term."
And what i said, and i think rightly so, is that not all
problems science can solve at this current stage of the game.
I also encouraged (still do) the scientific method for evidence
gathering and testing.
<<It seems to me that science does not - in any conceivable way -
limit the movement of the human mind through rather extreme
arenas. >>
That is right - only, i argue, that one's own attitude can
limit them, not science. If one's attitude is immersed in a
shadowy static-world formalism where they refuse to see all ends
of the equation, all aspects of the playing field, then yes they
are limited, by themselves.
<<...it seems to be about this "membrane" between the pursuit
of "cold facts" and the warm release into dramatic ecstasies.
Science fiction allows much of this process to occur without
corrupting the basic methodical approach of the scientist,
because it is admittedly a "game" of sorts, while research into
the vast "intelligence" of dolphins might be considered - by
this time - a horrendous embolism of the same desire to escape
the method and "jumpstart" that "magical moment." >>
Perhaps it is these vast jumps that is seen as a kind of
mysticism. This somewhat describes the gap - between what we
currently know about the forces, particles, energy, and pre-
bang - in fact most of the events surrounding that, not to
mention the 20 billion years that pre-existed the first 20 bil.
Those are all pretty important considerations, though not so
much to our daily lives, as it wasn't to the cavemen either.
I speak of the limits that exist today, the stumbling blocks
that science faces, not to stand strong and heavy and say that
science won't hurdle them. In fact, i am on the same side of
such a pursuit. And too, i know there is much more road to
travel, and in that i mean science hasn't proven everything
there is prove; science can barely solve simple quantum
equations without the crutch of linking them through some
similar situation. Our math merely mimicks natures elegance -
but perhaps, in time, we'll equip ourselves with a more complete
blueprint of it, and even then, we still may be wondering where
the bulldozers should go and if we have the correct 2x4's.
We've come pretty far in the last 300-2000 years or so -
compare that small sliver of a window to an estimated 20 billion
we've measured in post bang years. It is somewhat of an over-
confidence to think we've put a firm grasp upon what all lies
elsewhere, much less where and when every organism has lived
here at home. That's what i refer to about filling in the
blanks, macroscopically and microscopically.
<<Pre-big bang strikes me as unsolvable, but intriguing since it
lends itself to such flights of imagination. One can say it
plain, that such a subject is beyond resolving, and probably be
very safe, and more pointedly accurate about the subject. But
one shouldn't perhaps limit this area for what is mainly
scientific play of a sophisticated sort. It is not impossible to
think of us seeing the very furthest object given the right
equipment, but I think pre-big bang is pre-sensory, pre-
cognition, and thus quite beyond the ken. At this point one
might say all scientific consideration fades into mysticism,
although most scientists are more than willing to admit that
they are dealing with projections. >>
Ok, now you're coming around - it never hurts to project your
thoughts into the future, or even into far aways places!
Dale Houstman
"johnqadamsiii" <johnqadams...@yahoo.com.invalid> wrote in message
> Perhaps it is these vast jumps that is seen as a kind of
> mysticism. This somewhat describes the gap - between what we
> currently know about the forces, particles, energy, and pre-
> bang - in fact most of the events surrounding that, not to
> mention the 20 billion years that pre-existed the first 20 bil.
I think enactive cognition - not that I am a spoeksman in any way for it -
would say that there is no "gap" between what we perceive and what is: that
they are the same thing for all intents and purposes. Even Einstein (that
great fighter against the rising tide of quantum physics) said "The theory
determines what we see." And - intuitively again - I would say that whatever
the "chasm" might be that lies between what we are able to know and what
"is" it is unimportant to the point of fantasy. What we "know" at any given
point constitutes the entirety of what is to be known. It's a paradox, I
know (since we keep on knowing more and more - and forgetting some things
too!), but it seems no more odd than the idea of the universe continuously
growing into itself.
>And too, i know there is much more road to
> travel, and in that i mean science hasn't proven everything
> there is to prove; science can barely solve simple quantum
> equations without the crutch of linking them through some
> similar situation. Our math merely mimicks natures elegance -
> but perhaps, in time, we'll equip ourselves with a more complete
> blueprint of it, and even then, we still may be wondering where
> the bulldozers should go and if we have the correct 2x4's.
Again, it seems to me that science - at any given point - HAS proven all
there is to prove, and just hasn't gotten around to inventing new things to
prove.
> We've come pretty far in the last 300-2000 years or so -
> compare that small sliver of a window to an estimated 20 billion
> we've measured in post bang years. It is somewhat of an over-
> confidence to think we've put a firm grasp upon what all lies
> elsewhere, much less where and when every organism has lived
> here at home. That's what i refer to about filling in the
> blanks, macroscopically and microscopically.
But - on a fractal plane - there are always as many "blanks" to fill in as
there were. Barrett described this scenario (rather hilarious to me) of
building bigger and bigger machines to uncover smaller and smaller particles
(this pursuit always struck me as obsessively mad when I was younger). Of
course, this would seem to indicate that they only way to discover that
infinitely small particle would be to build an infinitely large machine!
Seems expensive and very crowding!
>
> Ok, now you're coming around - it never hurts to project your
> thoughts into the future, or even into far aways places!
>
Oh - I'm not coming round - I've always fel this way. One DOES vacillate a
bit, trying to keep a "tempoed" or elegant dance going between the
"suspended judgements" of science and the untempered expeditions of the
imagination, but I am firmly devoted to explosive projections. For instance
(speaking of science fiction) I must have hundreds of science fiction books.
Have always loved the stuff.
It is difficult to say that science is always understanding the full extent
of what there is to understand, without sounding imperious; there IS always
more to know, but it will take science (or a "scientific" approach of some
sort) to create more to know. Thus the imagination expands out from the Big
Bang just as the cosmic dust does. I think we're "keeping up."
dmh
kin...@hfwork1.tn.tudelft.nl
> But in what fashion? It seems to me that the basic foundation of the
> method - hypothesis - testing - theory - is a sound one that has flexibility
> built in to it stance.
A good book to read is David Deutsch's "The Fabric of Reality" (Penguin);
which covers this and other interesting stuff. Except I'd suggest
ignoring the many-worlds stuff he goes on about -- it's not an interpretation
held as useful by the majority of physicists.
#Paul
barrett john erickson
"Dale Houstman" <dm...@citilink.com> wrote in message
news:398aa4bb$1$8309$65a9...@news.citilink.com...
>
> "johnqadamsiii" <johnqadams...@yahoo.com.invalid> wrote in message
> news:04ca8218...@usw-ex0104-025.remarq.com...
> > Perhaps it is these vast jumps that is seen as a kind of
> > mysticism. This somewhat describes the gap - between what we
> > currently know about the forces, particles, energy, and pre-
> > bang - in fact most of the events surrounding that, not to
> > mention the 20 billion years that pre-existed the first 20 bil.
>
> I think enactive cognition - not that I am a spoeksman in any way for it -
> would say that there is no "gap" between what we perceive and what is:
that
> they are the same thing for all intents and purposes.
very good, Dale!
[ i've been hanging back until i could give some serious consideration to
Parry's request for examples of scientific paradoxes resolved by simply
reconsidering the experimental results from an enactive cognition
perspective. still haven't got to that, but couldn't resist this. ]
there is, in fact, no "gap" between what is and what we perceive in this
example because EC defines cognition as a "structural coupling that brings
forth a world" -- that is, cognition is direct engagement with "latent"
realty and "what is" is basically the result of our extensive and creative
processing of that direct engagement.
our perceptions emerge directly from this engagement in a kind of selective
creative assembly process. we then _add_ further harmonic overtones (via
emergent "higher level" cognitive activity) to the specific cognitive
moment, link moments together into melodies, and weave tapestries of complex
harmony and counterpoint. but these additions do not distance us from the
original cognitive act, they enhance it with new cognitive action.
[ of course, when one person's "enhancements" diverge greatly from that of
another person, divergent experiential realities are produced. hence
schizophrenia, etc. divergent realities are no less real, but we see them
as problematic because they do not merge well into the general (species
level) consensus reality ("the way things are"). ]
as for the current limits of science, i argue that we've described the
problem inaccurately: it isn't a matter of having insufficient knowledge of
some characteristics of the universe, its a matter of not having
_creatively_ resolved differences between how things _actually_ behave in
some current experience as opposed to how we _thought_things_should_behave_
(based on prior experience) -- i.e., direct experience vs. the "reality" our
imaginations have produced.
[ and bear in mind that when i say "how things behave" i'm really talking
about that moment of direct engagement, the "structural coupling" that is
cognition. ]
so it is, again, a failure of the imagination.
> Even Einstein (that
> great fighter against the rising tide of quantum physics) said "The theory
> determines what we see." And - intuitively again - I would say that
whatever
> the "chasm" might be that lies between what we are able to know and what
> "is" it is unimportant to the point of fantasy. What we "know" at any
given
> point constitutes the entirety of what is to be known. It's a paradox, I
> know (since we keep on knowing more and more - and forgetting some things
> too!),
and that is the essence of evolution.
and here is where complexity theory enters.
at some point there is no simpler way to describe something than that thing
itself -- a mathematical set so complex that any formula created to describe
what was or was not part of that set would be "larger" than simply listing
each member individually. (this comes from Gregory Chaitlin, if i remember
correctly)
this seems very relevant to cognition, reality, "the universe", and quantum
level processes as well as our understanding of them.
>
> >
> > Ok, now you're coming around - it never hurts to project your
> > thoughts into the future, or even into far aways places!
> >
> Oh - I'm not coming round - I've always fel this way. One DOES vacillate a
> bit, trying to keep a "tempoed" or elegant dance going between the
> "suspended judgements" of science and the untempered expeditions of the
> imagination, but I am firmly devoted to explosive projections.
for me, this line of thought _is_ a marvelous imaginative explosion.
> For instance
> (speaking of science fiction) I must have hundreds of science fiction
books.
> Have always loved the stuff.
>
> It is difficult to say that science is always understanding the full
extent
> of what there is to understand, without sounding imperious; there IS
always
> more to know, but it will take science (or a "scientific" approach of some
> sort) to create more to know. Thus the imagination expands out from the
Big
> Bang just as the cosmic dust does. I think we're "keeping up."
well put.
the birth of cognition _is_ the "big bang".
johnqadamsiii
>
>"johnqadamsiii" <johnqadams...@yahoo.com.invalid> wrote
in message
>news:04ca8218...@usw-ex0104-025.remarq.com...
>> Perhaps it is these vast jumps that is seen as a kind of
>> mysticism. This somewhat describes the gap - between what we
>> currently know about the forces, particles, energy, and pre-
>> bang - in fact most of the events surrounding that, not to
>> mention the 20 billion years that pre-existed the first 20
bil.
>
>I think enactive cognition - not that I am a spoeksman in any
way for it -
>would say that there is no "gap" between what we perceive and
what is: that
Einstein (that
>great fighter against the rising tide of quantum physics)
said "The theory
>determines what we see."
This was evidently misinterpretted to some degree, and that
was "my bad". The gaps being: gaps between what we know and what
we think we know. Suspended judgement, as you just mention, is
more or less what im getting at. Its OK to admit that there are
just certain things we are not certain of - that i feel is much
better than assuming too much and arrogantly carving into stone
this thing or that only to realize, in the end, you were wrong.
>And - intuitively again - I would say that whatever
>the "chasm" might be that lies between what we are able to know
and what
>"is" it is unimportant to the point of fantasy. What we "know"
at any given
>point constitutes the entirety of what is to be known. It's a
paradox, I
>know (since we keep on knowing more and more - and forgetting
some things
>too!), but it seems no more odd than the idea of the universe
continuously
>growing into itself.
What would you describe this "to be known" factor to be?
Certianly we "know" as we "go" ie, create, discover, explore.
Which, if there are things to explore and discover, there are
things to know. We may if we wish wrap everything up neatly in
order to simplify things by saying everything we perceive is the
universe in its entirety, so far as we are concerned-we are the
creative center of the universe! I say it's perfectly okay to
admit there are things currently out of reach of
our "imaginitive" eyes.
That is unless you take the stance that there is an intuitive
link between every particle that exists, and their "knowledge"
is communicative between every other, all of the way up to the
human species level of consciousness. To some degree that is
true (as seen in the interactions of molecules and cells). But
that we can access it ourselves and make use of such vast
information could prove quite troublesome in proving.
>
>But - on a fractal plane - there are always as many "blanks" to
fill in as
>there were. Barrett described this scenario (rather hilarious
to me) of
>building bigger and bigger machines to uncover smaller and
smaller particles
>(this pursuit always struck me as obsessively mad when I was
younger). Of
>course, this would seem to indicate that they only way to
discover that
>infinitely small particle would be to build an infinitely large
machine!
>Seems expensive and very crowding!
Indeed, this could begin to take up much of the universe in
order to discover that one tiny particle (only to find ourselves
bumped through the looking glass upon reaching it).
<<Again, it seems to me that science - at any given point - HAS
proven all there is to prove, and just hasn't gotten around to
inventing new things to prove. >>
Really now? Surely you are aware of plenty of the examples that
are left to be clarified much less proven. How about the 97% of
so-called "junk" stored within dna, as one "small" example-
scientists admit they are mostly unknowledgable about much of
those processes. Are you so certain we are not still attempting
to piece certain unknowns together in order to gain a greater
understanding of our surroundings that we need only to create
new things to rediscover?
>Oh - I'm not coming round - I've always fel this way. One DOES
vacillate a
>bit, trying to keep a "tempoed" or elegant dance going between
the
>"suspended judgements" of science and the untempered
expeditions of the
>imagination, but I am firmly devoted to explosive projections.
For instance
>(speaking of science fiction) I must have hundreds of science
fiction books.
>Have always loved the stuff.
>
>It is difficult to say that science is always understanding the
full extent
>of what there is to understand, without sounding imperious;
there IS always
>more to know, but it will take science (or a "scientific"
approach of some
>sort) to create more to know. Thus the imagination expands out
from the Big
>Bang just as the cosmic dust does. I think we're "keeping up."
>
>dmh
I don't intend to sound like im drilling you on your words, but
how does science create more to know, again? The only way
to "create" more to know is to discover things unknown, and as
far as im concerned there are many still - dark matter, a fine
example, comprises (i think) over 50% of the universe and little
of its nature is understood. Like i say, we can assume this
model of coupling our imaginations to the stimulus of the
enviroment, but to say - atleast for me - that each new turn of
events we percieve is that which we create or that which is all
there is to know is exactly imperious as you describe. It is a
way of structing ourselves, within our imagination, to the world
in a precise and safe manner in that it obviates unknowns and
serves to appear both simple and elegant. Although it is clear
to see, one can never count to infinity! Or something...
Dale Houstman
"johnqadamsiii" <johnqadams...@yahoo.com.invalid> wrote in message
>Its OK to admit that there are
> just certain things we are not certain of - that i feel is much
> better than assuming too much and arrogantly carving into stone
> this thing or that only to realize, in the end, you were wrong.
I understand this - and again I feel this is essentially a semantic debate -
but it isn't that I would say we are "uncertain" of things, or that we are -
at some point - "wrong" but that we are entirely correct for the moment of
our sensation. Barrett is better at this than I am (I'd rather get stoned
and watch C.H.I.PS), but - at least on a personal level - I don't feel that
I am incorrect or misinformed at some earlier point, but that I haven't yet
manifested the "space" into which I might engage in a new way. In a silly
example (and I am always looking for silly ones!) it isn't "wrong" that a
child experiences time differently, or that he/she thinks repeated phrases
are magical. It is - in a sense - appropriate. Their thoughts on these
matters are - of course - poetic, and with luck the adult realizes such
moments also. But this is merely semantics.
>
> What would you describe this "to be known" factor to be?
In the simplest sense, poetry, or The Poetic. Since Hypothesis precedes
theory, and is often (compared to the sober "reality") bizarre and
intuitive, I would strike a parallel between that portion of the scientific
method and the "feeling out" of the poetic method.
When the English explorers invaded - with their "advanced" minds - the deeps
of the African jungle, they brought all they had imagined about its
existence with them, and - for the longest time - utilized that
pre-knowledge (that poetic - if horrendous - accretion of myths) in place of
any observation. Then the anthropologists came. And they brought their
"benign" investigations to the fore. That so many of these are now
considered tainted and manifestly incorrect is obvious. Now - maybe
capitalist invaders have a vision of Africa (parallel to their impossible
vision of Russia as a "democratic"/capitalist state). There appears to be
little possibility of seeing "pure" truth, since we can only observe via the
imagination, and its mythic weight. And so on. This isn't to say that there
doesn't exist a "strange new world" out there quite impatient for our full
regard, but its full parameters will always elude us, even if we don't count
the fact that we "lose" perspectives continuously. One may reject the
Pre-Copernican model of the solar system (as I do), but it is a poetic
knowledge (which in turns creates many different ripple effects throughout
human life) that is - for the most part - now unavailable to us except in
the "abstract." This is considering full knowledge not as simply a list of
dry and totally unbiased facts (impossible to achieve since any viewing
involves the choice of what to look for and what to look at and where to
expect it, etc.), but as the process we would call imagination.
> That is unless you take the stance that there is an intuitive
> link between every particle that exists, and their "knowledge"
> is communicative between every other, all of the way up to the
> human species level of consciousness. To some degree that is
> true (as seen in the interactions of molecules and cells). But
> that we can access it ourselves and make use of such vast
> information could prove quite troublesome in proving.
As Barrett explains it, I suppose this is correct. Poe's Eureka talks of the
same thing. It makes sense to me that human cognition is the natural
outgrowth of that patterning we observe in the universe. That "pattern" also
includes random events of course. Whether or not I would denote that
patterning in lower animals and things as "cognition" - no. But I do feel
akin to that process.
>
> Really now? Surely you are aware of plenty of the examples that
> are left to be clarified much less proven. How about the 97% of
> so-called "junk" stored within dna, as one "small" example-
> scientists admit they are mostly unknowledgable about much of
> those processes. Are you so certain we are not still attempting
> to piece certain unknowns together in order to gain a greater
> understanding of our surroundings that we need only to create
> new things to rediscover?
I think science is beginning to invent these things to prove. But I don't
doubt there are unknowns that we will have to see and utilize to "grow" our
database. But what will we be seeing when we see them? How much
pre-judgement must be involved even to know where to look? When we look
where we expect to find something, what will elude us? And does the
discovery of one process make it more difficult - or even impossible - to
uncover another that may contradict or at least complicate our discovery.
>
>
> I don't intend to sound like im drilling you on your words, but
> how does science create more to know, again?
By positioning itelf so as to uncover what it wants to see.
> The only way to "create" more to know is to discover things unknown
Well there is the imagination which can create some rather ornate systems
out of really very little. And many scientific processes begin just this
way, with inuition. Then it moves to uncover supporting relevancies. But -
honestly - I will admit this is all arcane to me, and only portions of it
seem intuitively correct. But - even in astronomy - often the observor who
discovers a new moon was looking in a particular area due to the slightest
intuition, or a rather shoddy set of facts and figures. But - at that -I am
not saying that there are no moons to be discovered. As a poet I tend to be
vastly more interested in sleeping well!
>Although it is clear to see, one can never count to infinity! Or
something...
>
Yet, but only the human mind would have conceived of something it cannot
grasp. Quite marvelous I'd think...
dmh
johnqadamsiii
Now that you've expanded and reworded some, i am pretty much in
agreement with this contention. Essentially for this particular
cognitive model to work, it should probably be a requirement to
consider everything that exists that we know of we spring forth
from and are still actively a part of; particles are flying in
and out of us on a constant basis. And in essence we both take
from and give in to this common body of knowledge. And here is
the point where mysticism, enactivism, and science merge!
Seriously though, why shouldn't it be a valid proposal, or in
fact explain very much in the way of understanding the us/outer
us.
Sometimes i am even led to believe this transmission of
knowledge IS possible between individuals, because of a) some
not so well-known research into it and b) some of my own
personal experiences. Though of course, one must remain atleast
somewhat skeptical in dealing with such conclusions, if any are
to be made. If it were an actual, common phenomenon, i would
regard it as quite natural and nothing _more_ "magical" than the
enzymes that seek out and wrap around protiens, or the reaction
of antibodies that strike out against foreign invading bodies.
<<As Barrett explains it, I suppose this is correct. Poe's
Eureka talks of the same thing. It makes sense to me that human
cognition is the natural outgrowth of that patterning we observe
in the universe. That "pattern" also includes random events of
course. Whether or not I would denote that patterning in lower
animals and things as "cognition" - no. But I do feel akin to
that process. >>
Patterning sounds a little too simple and past tense occurance
to me, here. Let me explain: I might be of the inclination to
use the word creative enjoining, en masse (or mass!). That a
world teeming of small particles and whirling clouds burst into
flames to create the universe, in review, from our little dock
in the harbor, i conclude does not necessitate simple patterning
of random bits of debris-matter (happenstance) - but that is
just my personal opinion (and maybe yours). The routine of the
stars, the planets, everything in motion, leaves its footprints
behind in the sand for us to examine empirically past tense. As
for that moment of sparkling just before time as we know it, i
can but only imagine the bountiful supply of equal wonderment
and possibility just as much inherent then which began to lay
its patterning tracks into action (and why not?). One could
say, and very accurately, that C.H.I.P.S. was a primary example,
one striking case of a supreme realization, within our
imaginations, within the energy to create the world - and that
it became a most useful tool to live by for decades whenceforth.
<<I think science is beginning to invent these things to prove.
But I don't doubt there are unknowns that we will have to see
and utilize to "grow" our database. But what will we be seeing
when we see them? How much pre-judgement must be involved even
to know where to look? When we look where we expect to find
something, what will elude us? And does the discovery of one
process make it more difficult - or even impossible - to uncover
another that may contradict or at least complicate our
discovery.>>
Exactly my point mon frere!
>>>I don't intend to sound like im drilling you on your words,
>>>but how does science create more to know, again?
>>By positioning itelf so as to uncover what it wants to see.
Science is merely the tool we use to 'see' these things
ourselves.
Typically they are already there, or in the making, science
doesn't have to create them, merely (we) needs to look.
It's true (i think), that truth can be as elusive as the
fleeting spring birds inside june, in that let us say then
perhaps, there is no 'ultimate truth', just as the rocks could
be expressed as either happy or droll. And just maybe that has
made sense...
Parry
> > The way the word "mysticism" is used
> > here -- in a thread sparked by talk of tarot and astrology - - is
> > according to its common dictionary definition: "belief in the
> > attainment, through contemplation, of truths inaccessible to the
> > understanding; system of prayers etc. designed to achieve this;
> > (coll.) vague irrational religious or occult notions." Sounds new-
> > age thingy to me. But I agree that terms like “psyche,” “collective
> > unconscious,” or even “soul” can be used without meaning
> > “supernatural,” if the interlocutors agree on this in advance.
>
> Well, one can't expect the dictionary to set us in the correct path
> alone. Its a matter of using judgement. Like i say, the term by now is
> so over-used that there are several meanings and practices - eastern
> mysticism, western, rosicrucians, etc. Since my mother was a
> Rosicrucian for a long while i have a little more first hand
> knowledge of the more "serious" side of mystical groups. What id
> like to point out is that if someone uses the term mystic it may not
> necessarily be the equivalent of new-agery.
I think I’ve already agreed with this. Sure a word can have a
specialized meaning, but in most of its usage the word “mysticism” fits
the dictionary definition I provided. The problem with specialized
meaning is that allows liars to employ the words out of context, as has
happened with Einstein’s comments on religion.
> > We probably have another semantic argument brewing here.
> > One can say “everything is science” just as another can say
> > “everything is philosophy.” To me, science is an approach based
> > on the study and reflection of specific problems, and letting
> > evidence speak for itself even when it defies the weight of
> > accumulated authority. Not all science is "hard" science, and the
> > "scientific method" is a bit of a myth. The basic tenets of science
> > are flexible and versatile enough that they can be applied to any
> > problem, so I don't know that there are things beyond the reach of
> > science. Even for a seeming philosophic question like "what came
> > before creation" scientists are offering theories and searching for
> > means of verification.
> I wouldn't make the mistake of saying either of those - everything is
> science, or philosophy. And I am not berating the scientific method,
> that i think is obvious. As a means of experimentation and processing
> of information it is often most invaluable to us. As a means of
> representing reality it certainly does have its limitations. In fact,
> quantum mechanics false short in even the simplest of predictions.
> We simply are adjusted to the idea of concrete reality being right at
> the touch of our fingertips, living in a static world where the only
> thing that isn't is our constructed idea of time in seconds, hours, and
> days which our lives are wrapped around. The earth is still the center
> of the universe, the microbe on a dust particle that it is.
>
> Every object is composed of smaller and smaller particles which
> follow a wave pattern or vibration, yet they are elusive upon closer
> inspection. Can science handle any problem? No, currently that is a
> myth. In time, maybe. Of course science itself would have, or had to
> have, changed drastically by then. What about pre-big bang? The only
> thing i can imagine to surface are more and more theories. Every
> good scientist knows his limitations and thinks around them with an
> open yet evaluating mind. When those problems that do arise which
> are most perplexing and unsolvable, then one may be forced to
> choose an alternative perspective, temporary or long-term.
>
> > > Would it surprise you to know that Heisenberg, Schroedinger,
> > > Einstein, De Broglie, Pauli, Jeans, Plank, Eddington, all
> > > considered themselves mystics?
>
> > No. When it comes to things in which a person may believe, nothing
> > surprises me. And I doubt that each of these people meant the same
> > thing when they used the word to describe themselves -- if indeed
> > they did. In the case of Einstein, for instance, religionists have
> > deliberately misused his words to make it sound as if he were in
> > their camp. On the other hand, I've noticed scientists who
> > subscribe to a sort of legalistic deism, by which they can say they
> > believe in god (meaning nature or whatever), just not a "personal"
> > god. So they get to have it both ways.
>
> Why take my word for it? Look them up sometime.
Actually, I will take your word for it. You can’t deny you’re an honest
fellow. And anyway I’m not big on biographies.
> I could probably throw Dirac, Bohm, Sherrington, and a few others
> in as well. It doesn't mean they all thought along the same exact
> personal lines, of course, nor ones i might agree on.
>
> Here is an example though, without trying to force their comments
> into a particular belief camp -
>
> Einstein: "I maintain that the cosmic religious feeling is the strongest
> and noblest motive for scientific research"
Here’s a couple of other related quotes from Einstein:
"I believe in Spinoza's God who reveals himself in the harmony of all
that exists, but not in a God who concerns himself with the fate and
actions of human beings." (1929)
"It was, of course, a lie what you read about my religious convictions,
a lie which is being systematically repeated. I do not believe in a
personal God and I have never denied this but have expressed it clearly.
If something is in me which can be called religious then it is the
unbounded admiration for the structure of the world so far as our
science can reveal it." (1954)
> Bohm: We could think of the mystic as coming into contact with
> tremendous depths of the subtlety of matter or of mind, whatever you
> want to call it.
>
> Heisenberg: The bridge of initially unordered data of experience to
> the Ideas is seen by Pauli in certain primeval images pre- existing in
> the soul ... These primeval images – here Pauli is largely in
> agreement with Jung – should not be located in conscious or related
> to specific rationally formulable ideas. It is a question, rather, of
> forms belonging to the unconscious region of the soul, images of
> powerful emotional content, which are beheld, as it were, pictorially
> ... in which understanding has found its place in various degrees and
> kinds, even in knowledge of the word of God.
>
> And later,
>
> Hawking: We still believe that the universe should be logical and
> beautiful; we just dropped the word "God".
>
> Those are just a few quick references - not exactly what describes
> each of their notions of the world. But what i want to express is that I
> think many of these individuals realized the elegance behind the day
> to day reality we sometimes call matter, which again can be said to
> be nothing more than the superimposition of waves into elusive
> particles.
Elegance is really just a matter of opinion, and I sometimes think
scientists develop these sorts of opinions as a defense mechanism, a way
of glad-handing in a world where they are accused of replacing god with
man, tampering with nature, and so forth.
> But it isn't my concern to try to marry these two together (mysticism
> and science), especially in the same arena. As stated, i merely
> wanted to explain that the term is a little more encompassing than oui
> ja boards, tarot cards, and outright stupidity. For those reasons and
> more i try to avoid using the term mysticism, myself.
I agree. Why invite confusion with terms like “a mystic” when one really
means “enthralled by the vastness of the cosmos” or “moved by an oceanic
feeling”?
> > It probably has more to do with memes than moms.
> > Understanding that knowledge is limited does not mean that the
> > unknown areas get to be filled in with mystical bilge.
>
> Right, who likes bilge anyway. But then again, the unknown areas
> equally need not be filled by unrealistic reductionistic thinkers.
>
It seems obvious that the unknown areas should be filled with educated
guesses and living imagination, if anything at all.
-- Parry
Parry
>
> This is stupid. Just thought everyone should know that before they begin
> to read this.
>
> > > emphasize a "personal relationship with Christ". What this means
> > > is that a worshipper has a direct relationship to his God, and
> > > does not have to go through a church elder. There is no
> > > "oppressive authority" in this model. Just Jim and his friend
> > > Jesus, without an intermediary. This is important because if your
> > > church elder is your access to the voice of God, the elder
> > > will inevitably bully his "lessers". He will express his bias as
> > > "divine inspiration". He will try to make everyone into sheep.
>
> > religion. The eldest church elder is its putative founder Jesus who
> > indeed claimed the voice of God and wanted to turn people into his
> > sheep.
>
> Not all Christians perceive Christ to be the "church elder" who has all
> the answers.
Nor did I say they do.
> Much like some Buddhists say Buddha merely points in a
> certain direction, so does Christ. Must like Breton, Freud, Jung, L. Ron
> Hubbard, feminist leaders, capitalists, socialists, anarchists -- they all
> point in a particular direction and say, "This is the way to go."
>
> I suspect you've been inundated with loud Christians who say "Jesus is
> Lord" and leave it at that.
Hardly. It’s not as if I live in the Middle Ages or Burnaby.
> It clearly doesn't have to be that way.
> People in here, for example, say Breton had some neat ideas and points in
> an interesting direction. The same can be said for Jesus.
There are obvious differences between intellectuals and religious
figureheads like Christ. The former rise and fall on the merits of their
ideas; the latter are thought to be vessels of supernatural authority or
moral order, and as they represent some value of “goodness” for
followers the actual content of their words doesn’t particularly matter.
The “personal relationship” to which you referred indicates some sort of
imagined two-way communication that doesn’t obtain with the usual
earthbound personalities of literature.
> You like to think that there is only one way to deal with this Jesus
> fellow. Which is a bit over-simplified.
Again, your comment doesn’t reflect anything I wrote. But the simplistic
“only one way” view was maintained by Christ and Paul.
> I'll agree with you on one thing -- Jesus, in general, is badly misused by
> many. He's a myth, no more dangerous than Zeus or Odin. But he's misused
> by a lot of people.
I haven’t said Jesus is “badly misused” by many. Perhaps you mistakenly
believe that any ill consequences of christianity are due to misuse of
Jesus.
> > In some cases, far more dangerous than the Church sheep is the loner who
> > has a personal relationship with God. For instance, that guy who became
> > a serial killer of prostitutes after watching Cecil B. DeMille’s “The
> > Ten Commandments.”
>
> This is a laughable example.
Actually, I was trying to inject humour with this anecdote. Not that
serial killers are funny, but this one case serves to make ridiculous
the typical arguments of moralistic censors, so I like to repeat it.
It’s interesting too that countless religious psychotics have had a
personal relationship with god, relationships which are just as real and
valid as any of the more innocuous ones.
> Some loners watch "Taxi Driver" and try to
> shoot the president. Some watch "The Ten Commandments".
>
> > Anyone who thinks the “teachings” of the New Testament has relevance to
> > modern life is a flake.
>
> What a silly thing to say. And you go on to say that no atheist portrays
> all christians as the same? Silly person.
Any schoolchild can tell you that no two flakes are the same.
> > No atheist ever says all christians are exactly the same, or that
> > they’re all ignorant. If god-belief were simply a matter of ignorance,
> > it could be easily fixed. But, sadly, it grows from a mesh of psychology
> > (fear, ego gratification, etc.), social conformity, ignorance, and
> > mental illness.
>
> Jung speculates that the reason people become alcoholics and drug addicts
> is because they're on a quest for meaning. Their lives are empty. In a
> quest for meaning, identity, pleasure, ecstasy, understanding, etc, they
> use drugs and booze. Some might say, what these people are lacking is
> religion.
>
> Religion -- or MEANING of some kind, not necessarily religious -- is
> essential. Yes, some people will use their religion much like a drug
> addict would use heroin. They'll abuse the church, and use it to define
> their life instead of to guide it.
What you call “meaning,” I would call “purpose.” There’s no abuse of the
church; that’s what the church is there for -- to safely channel desire
away from the plane of social action.
> > I do seem to recall it being pointed out that resort to
> > these [Christian] symbols indicates a bankrupt imagination.
>
> I don't see why.
There are several reasons which you should be able to figure out,
especially as I believe they’ve already been explained to you. For one
thing, consider how -- for as long as I’ve been watching this group --
your thoughts have returned to this ground with the predictability and
grace of a shot-put to the earth.
> I'm willing to try all symbols. I try to paint with as
> many colours as I can. I see no reason to reject a particular colour.
The analogy between words and colours is limited. For instance, it’s
difficult to turn colours into clichés.
> > Your advocacy of such imagery only gives it an
> > undeserved lease on life, and for no better reason than that as
> > “metaphor” it impresses the sorts of minds that are impressed by this
> > sort of thing -- admittedly a sizable chunk of the consumer audience.
>
> Boy, that's a nice try at an insult. The symbols are there and they
> interest me. It has little to do with my "consumer audience".
I wasn’t reaching to insult you. My assertion is supported by a glance
at best-seller lists. On the other hand, you’ve not been shy about your
commercial aspirations before.
> > And I don’t think Cythera’s essential question -- why do you (Nik)
> > persist in pushing these symbols on this newsgroup? -- has been
> > answered.
>
> I think the general dislike in this newsgroup for these symbols are
> irrational.
The reasoning has been explained here several times by several people.
> I see them as just as useful as any other set of symbols. I
> like to promote the notion of an open mind.
I’m as skeptical about this assertion as I am about everything else you
wrote.
> Try everything twice, just in
> case you do it wrong the first time.
How about reading over a post a second time before responding to it?
Parry
>
> In article <8mc3ds$t00$1...@freenet9.carleton.ca>,
> ac...@FreeNet.Carleton.CA (Nikolaus Maack) wrote:
>
> > Parry (pa...@zxOMITmail.com) writes:
> > > There’s a built-in oppressive authority in monotheistic, messianic
> > > religion.
>
> body, with the usual economic interest in protecting and perpetuating
> itself.
>
> Cults so powerful as to be actually viewed as religions, such as those
> of Diana at Ephesus (in modern-day Turkey), Apollo at Delphi, Amon in
> Egypt, the Druids, (and a bunch of other religions I won't go into),
> all, like Christianity, evolved from small pockets of devotees into
> organizations so powerful that they required an enormous amount of
> employees in order to run smoothly and keep growing.
>
> I take an economic view of history.
I also take an essentially economic view of history. But I would have
been clearer (not that it would have helped) had I left out the word
“religion” and just said there is a built-in oppressive authority in
theism. The power of religions as governing bodies has declined
worldwide over the last century or so, but the influence of theism less
so. I suppose if organized religion disappeared, the ruling classes
could still reap the benefits of god-belief.
> Isn't there some evidence that Tut was murdered in order to return
> Egypt from the monotheistic Aton-worship, to Amon worship? The
> priests, scribes, laborers et al at the temples of Amon were going
> broke.
I don’t know the details of this story, but I have read that the
educated classes of ancient Egypt exhibited -- in some writings at
least, such as ‘The Maxims of Ptah-hetep’ -- a healthy indifference to
gods, and wrote in such a way that a monotheism has been inferred.
> Religions in the U.S.A. are corporations that pay no tax. But
> people's need to explain to themselves and each other what life and
> death are is something else.
>
> (I think you probably know all of this, Parry, but someone who doesn't
> might get a bit from it).
Anyone specific? It seems odd that Nik always wants to talk religion,
yet he doesn’t appear to be aware of religion’s role in social
organization, or even of the particulars of the religion he is
advocating.
> cythera
>
> P.S. Glad you're back. You add so much to this group.
Shucks and thank you. I feel the same about you, of course. I never
exactly went away: even when I’m not posting I try to keep track of the
threads.
Nikolaus Maack
> There are obvious differences between intellectuals and religious
> figureheads like Christ.
You're assuming that Christ *isn't* an intellectual figurehead as well as
a religious one. There's more than one way to be religious.
> I haven’t said Jesus is “badly misused” by many. Perhaps you mistakenly
> believe that any ill consequences of christianity are due to misuse of
> Jesus.
Well, yes and no. You seem to be making all the standard arguments --
correct me if I'm wrong -- that religion has led to all kinds of terrible
things. It can be argued that one doesn't have to be religious to be
terrible. We can be terrible all by ourselves. Ridding the world of
religion would only make us terrible in new ways.
> For on
> thing, consider how -- for as long as I’ve been watching this group --
> your thoughts have returned to this ground with the predictability and
> grace of a shot-put to the earth.
If I were among a group of racists -- instead of atheists -- would you be
surprised at my repeated defence of black people?
My girlfriend eats her breakfast and logs on at the same time, so I now
have to log off or risk fucking up her breakfast routine. Ergo, must log
off myself. Toodles.
Nik
PS.
Strawberry creamcheese looks yummy, but kind of hurts.
johnqadamsiii
Parry <parryN...@zxmail.com.invalid> wrote:
>
>I think I’ve already agreed with this. Sure a word can have a
>specialized meaning, but in most of its usage the
word “mysticism” fits
>the dictionary definition I provided. The problem with
specialized
>meaning is that allows liars to employ the words out of
context, as has
>happened with Einstein’s comments on religion.
Well, it isn't that it's such a specialized meaning - there are
simply many forms it can take beyond "vague irrational religous
or occult notions.", " belief in attainment", Prayers", etc.
Therefore, if you are going to adhere to one meaning only
despite the situation it applies to then indeed words will
continue to be employed out of context for you.
Who's to say?
That's great, i would have thought of him more along such lines,
to be honest (not exactly "religous"). However, it is no secret
the papers and open discussions several of the important
physicists had - especially pauli and einstein, being so close -
on what could be revered as touching upon "mystical" concepts,
depending on your definition of the term. Wolfgang Pauli and
Carl Jung in fact often worked closely together on such
questionable topics to you im sure as "synchronicity".
Perhaps that is occasionally true. Though that opinion of
elegance seems obvious even to the child, or especially to the
child. But of course most adjectives we use to apply to the
universe could be regarded as opinion, even the phrase comprised
of solid matter.
>> But it isn't my concern to try to marry these two together
(mysticism
>> and science), especially in the same arena. As stated, i
merely
>> wanted to explain that the term is a little more encompassing
than oui
>> ja boards, tarot cards, and outright stupidity. For those
reasons and
>> more i try to avoid using the term mysticism, myself.
>
>I agree. Why invite confusion with terms like “a mystic” when
one really
>means “enthralled by the vastness of the cosmos” or “moved by
an oceanic
>feeling”?
Im sorry, i didn't realize i was inviting confusion, nor that i
had meant "moved by oceanic feelings" that im aware of, as
opposed to certain scientists dabbling in mystical territories -
which if i'm led to believe correctly should mean only one
thing: "prayer, attainment, irrational religious notions"
(sounds like that could be referring to anything from
christianity to hinduism to me).
>> > It probably has more to do with memes than moms.
>> > Understanding that knowledge is limited does not mean that
the
>> > unknown areas get to be filled in with mystical bilge.
>>
>> Right, who likes bilge anyway. But then again, the unknown
areas
>> equally need not be filled by unrealistic reductionistic
thinkers.
>>
>
>It seems obvious that the unknown areas should be filled with
educated
>guesses and living imagination, if anything at all.
Educate or uneducated, living or non-living, guesses or
assumptions, it usually varies.
johnqadamsiii
few of these essays, like Heisenberg's "If Science is Conscious
of Its Limits", Pauli's "Embracing the Rational and the
Mystical", Einstein's "Cosmic Religious Feeling", etc. when i
can sit down and type them out.
Dale Houstman
"Nikolaus Maack" <ac...@FreeNet.Carleton.CA> wrote in message
news:8mm4ij$f5j$1...@freenet9.carleton.ca...
>
> Well, yes and no. You seem to be making all the standard arguments --
> correct me if I'm wrong -- that religion has led to all kinds of terrible
> things. It can be argued that one doesn't have to be religious to be
> terrible. We can be terrible all by ourselves. Ridding the world of
> religion would only make us terrible in new ways.
At least we would be rid of one old way. At any rate, you waylay and dodge
the argument at the same time, as usual. Ridding the world of serial killers
would only make us terrible in new ways also, but that's no argument for
serial killing. There's always plenty of ways to be horrible. We're
discussing one of them: Christianity.
>
> > For on
> > thing, consider how -- for as long as I've been watching this group --
> > your thoughts have returned to this ground with the predictability and
> > grace of a shot-put to the earth.
>
> If I were among a group of racists -- instead of atheists -- would you be
> surprised at my repeated defence of black people?
No - of course not - but I would be dismayed by the continued vapidity of
your defense. And there is your implication that Christianity is a much put
upon minority race rather than a debatable philosophy of action and ideals.
It is - in this context - much more comparable with debating the validity
and impact of Islam rather than the "acceptability" of black people. Or are
you really putting yourself forth as a defender of the true faith? If one
were to carry this analogy you've suggested to its logical conclusion -
since you've repeatedly said Christianity is merely a grouping of useful
symbols - couldn't we attack your hypothetical defense of black people as
being equally opportunistic. Truth be told, the existence of blacks does not
depend upon the quality of your belief in them, but Christianity does. So
your parallel here is divergent. It leaks.
>
dmh
Parry
http://x66.deja.com/[ST_rn=ap]/getdoc.xp?AN=655537956&CONTEXT=966131381.1374027782&hitnum=7
johnqadamsiii <johnqadams...@yahoo.com.invalid> wrote:
> Parry <parryN...@zxmail.com.invalid> wrote:
> >I think I’ve already agreed with this. Sure a word can have a
> >specialized meaning, but in most of its usage the
> word “mysticism” fits
> >the dictionary definition I provided. The problem with
> specialized
> >meaning is that allows liars to employ the words out of
> context, as has
> >happened with Einstein’s comments on religion.
>
> Well, it isn't that it's such a specialized meaning - there are
> simply many forms it can take beyond "vague irrational religous or occult notions.", " belief in
> attainment", Prayers", etc. Therefore, if you are going to adhere to one meaning only
> despite the situation it applies to then indeed words will
> continue to be employed out of context for you.
In the case I cited, it’s not relevant that I thougt Einsetin was
usedout of context, but that Einstein did (“a lie which is being
systematically repeated,” etc.). The term “mysticism” simply has occult
colourings in its common use. Mysticism without the supernatural is like
Aunt Jemima’s pancakes without sunshine. So to use the word in a
non-occult sense would be to give it a specialized or customized
meaning.
[snip]
What were the fruits of their labours?
It’s also obvious to the child that the world is flat. The universe must
seem less elegant today then to those who thought the Earth was a
perfect sphere around which everything else moved in perfect circles.
> But of course most adjectives we use to apply to the
> universe could be regarded as opinion, even the phrase comprised of solid matter.
The solidity of matter seems more perception than opinion. It’s more
than just an opinion that a falling anvil will bust your head. But
“elegant,” like “beautiful,” is pure value-judgment. Sure, you might
think the universe is beautiful, but then some slick operator shows you
one so much prettier it makes this one looks like a low-rent trailer
park. And it only costs twice as much.
> >> But it isn't my concern to try to marry these two together
> (mysticism
> >> and science), especially in the same arena. As stated, i
> merely
> >> wanted to explain that the term is a little more encompassing
> than oui
> >> ja boards, tarot cards, and outright stupidity. For those
> reasons and
> >> more i try to avoid using the term mysticism, myself.
> >
> >I agree. Why invite confusion with terms like “a mystic” when
> one really
> >means “enthralled by the vastness of the cosmos” or “moved by
> an oceanic
> >feeling”?
>
> Im sorry, i didn't realize i was inviting confusion, nor that i
> had meant "moved by oceanic feelings" that im aware of, as opposed to certain scientists dabbling in
> mystical territories - which if i'm led to believe correctly should mean only one
> thing: "prayer, attainment, irrational religious notions" (sounds like that could be referring to anything
> from
> christianity to hinduism to me).
What the heck are you arguing about? I was agreeing with you! I wasn’t
referring to you in that last paragraph. After all, you wrote that you
avoid using the word “mystic,” and I was applauding that. I was
referring to the scientists you mentioned and others who would use a
familiar word in a sense distinct from its generally understood meaning.
Such use does invite confusion, especially as their comments are apt to
be isolated and presented as aphorism. I’m certainly confused about
their meaning. As I don’t know how they intended “mystic,” I was
suggesting non-supernaturalist uses of the term, particularly as regards
Einstein’s “cosmic” feeling. My contention is that any
non-supernaturalistic use of the term is better served by a clearer
substitution.
Parry
>
> In article <8mndiv$q3r$1...@nnrp1.deja.com>,
> cythera <cyt...@my-deja.com> wrote:
> > In article <398E8F...@zxOMITmail.com>,
> > pa...@zxOMITmail.com wrote:
> > > cythera wrote:
> > > >
> > > > In article <8mc3ds$t00$1...@freenet9.carleton.ca>,
> > > > ac...@FreeNet.Carleton.CA (Nikolaus Maack) wrote:
> > > >
> > > > > Parry (pa...@zxOMITmail.com) writes:
> > > > (I think you probably know all of this, Parry, but someone who
> > > > doesn't might get a bit from it).
> > >
> > > Anyone specific?
>
> write about religions, the medieval Fool, etc for Nik really at all.
> He seems disinterested in, and even irritated by, historical "fact".
To me, it appears that he, for whatever reason, adopts any position
which he believes absolves himself of having to know what he’s talking
about or understand what anyone else is talking about. I suspect his
initial attraction to surrealism came from an erroneous belief that it
sanctioned or celebrated mental incompetence and oblivion.
Unsurprisingly, he is interested postmodernism, probably for the same
reasons. I understand why you and Dale tend to write through him rather
than to him.
> However, I know there are people who never post to this newsgroup but
> read it nonetheless. (I get emails from some of them once in awhile).
> And I'd rather that Nik, and his misinformation, not go completely
> unchallenged.
It is a worthwhile effort, and one you’ve shouldered the brunt of
lately. Most newsgroups have their trolls, but it seems unusual that
this group has one so permanent and prolific.
> I myself can find no way in which he represents surrealism or
> surrealists.
Perhaps in negative example?
-- Parry
>
> > > It seems odd that Nik always wants to talk
> > > religion, yet he doesn’t appear to be aware of religion’s role in
> > > social organization, or even of the particulars of the religion
> > > he is advocating.
> >
> > Unfortunately, that's par for Nik, who seems to have little interest
> > in anything that isn't directly about serving Nik or drawing an
> > audience to Nik. It's doubtful we'll ever see any research from
> > him on Jungian archetypes (for example), or any post with substance.
> > Nik is a tourist, perhaps even in his own life.
>
> > On the plus side, he seems to be actualizing (what a silly word)
> > most of his potential.
>
> Just a note: I think he really is; this wasn't an insult. I know that
> I _rarely_ try my hardest, and am actually rather admiring of people
> who do, whether or not I agree with them.
>
> cythera
>
> Sent via Deja.com http://www.deja.com/
> Before you buy.
Nikolaus Maack
> To me, it appears that he, for whatever reason, adopts any position
> which he believes absolves himself of having to know what he’s talkin
I am 30 years of age. Given the average lifespan of a human being, I have
45 more years of life. It sickens me to think that for the next 40 years
I am going to have to listen to joyless, paranoid people theorize about me
endlessly, all the while ignoring their own foibles -- or worse,
pretending they have none.
(40 years instead of 45, because for the last five years of my life, I
plan on being deaf.)
> I understand why you and Dale tend to write through him rather
> than to him.
Do you?
I've been ignoring Cythera recently. As I ignored her, she got
progressively crazier. First she called me a boring git. I ignored that.
Then she said that I was here just to get attention, and that I should "go
away". I ignored that too. She then called me a coward, presumably
because I was ignoring her. I ignored this post as well. Finally she
concluded by saying that I was the worst "closet case" she'd ever seen,
and she's lived in San Francisco! (Which, I guess, is just one big
closet where people live in peace.)
This final quip of hers was so bizarre I couldn't help but feel
embarrassed for her. It was all especially amusing given that I'd
recently accused her of being obsessed with me -- a charge she denied. I
think four posts, in rapid succession, all directed at me, all ignored
(until now) prove my point.
The only theory I have regarding her behavior is that she's dealing with
some sort of personal trauma by projecting it on to me. Unfortunately,
Cythera will neither confirm nor deny this theory of mine, so I am at a
loss at what to do next. Except, presumably, continue to ignore her
dull insulting babble.
(This theory is only half in jest, by the way.)
If you really do understand why Cythera tries to communicate with me, and
why she does so in this extremely bizarre way, I would love to hear your
theories. Share, by all means.
> Most newsgroups have their trolls, but it seems unusual that
> this group has one so permanent and prolific.
Someone has to keep you people insane. You're all so stoic, reserved, and
serious. Is this where surrealism has taken us? What happened to the joy
and playfulness surrealism once was? Frankly, coming in here is like
walking into a kindergarden and finding out that it's nap-time all day,
every day.
Presumably we each have our vision of surrealism. Mine -- while the most
amusing -- is, alas, the least popular. Such is the heavy burden I carry.
Oh woe, the ceaseless struggle that I etcetera, etcetera.
Nik
johnqadamsiii
I wasn't so much trying to detach the notion of something
supernatural, there again depending on what you mean exactly,
from the term mysticism, so much as using the term as it was
used historically by some mystics themselves, and as i pointed
out, was seperating out oui ja, astrology, and other dragnet
material. So, no, i wasn't giving anything specialized meaning -
merely trying to clarify from an "archeological" perspective.
If you are looking for practical results and every day
applications, i don't know of many. What are the fruits of
labour for other painters, writers, philosophers, and theorists?
And point wasn't that synchronicity was 'correct'.
The child is very curious and mesmirized with its "universe",
less so with the callous 'reality' it inevitably is taught to
face growing up within most environments.
>The universe must
>seem less elegant today then to those who thought the Earth was
a
>perfect sphere around which everything else moved in perfect
circles.
That's right, those universecentrically aligned bastards.
To me though, the more we examine the universe the more elegant
it appears. That's up to the individual if they rather consider
it a trailer park of pale tedium, and perfectly fine.
>> But of course most adjectives we use to apply to the
>> universe could be regarded as opinion, even the phrase
comprised of solid matter.
>
>The solidity of matter seems more perception than opinion. It’s
more
>than just an opinion that a falling anvil will bust your head.
It's common sense my dear Parry. But i refer to the microscopic,
and beyond, in comparison to the macroscopic world, and the
evaluation of what the nature of matter really is, beyond our
everyday adaptation of that 'reality' we have come to perceive
(within the one slice of spectral EM radiation we see).
>But
>“elegant,” like “beautiful,” is pure value-judgment. Sure, you
might
>think the universe is beautiful, but then some slick operator
shows you
>one so much prettier it makes this one looks like a low-rent
trailer
>park. And it only costs twice as much.
Im not sure where you were aiming at with that. Was it at the
physical theorist? What person relies on the subjective valuing
of the world according to another's scheme of its theoretical
action-interaction? I simply express that what i perceive of it
to be is elegant - symmetrically, mathematically - the
fairground of all complexities and enchantments. Surely you
don't have to agree.
Well, i wasnt "arguing", but i thought you were still trying to
derail my use of mysticism as a word. And moreover, this was no
reference (in my referencing them) to mere feelings of vastness
of space or awe.
>Such use does invite confusion, especially as their comments
are apt to
>be isolated and presented as aphorism. I’m certainly confused
about
>their meaning. As I don’t know how they intended “mystic,” I was
>suggesting non-supernaturalist uses of the term, particularly
as regards
>Einstein’s “cosmic” feeling. My contention is that any
>non-supernaturalistic use of the term is better served by a
clearer
>substitution.
>
>-- Parry
We could agree on using another term, or we could agree on one
interpretation of the term to fit its use. Either way sensai.
johnqadamsiii
to derail my use of mysticism as a word. And moreover, this was
no reference (in my referencing them) to mere feelings of
vastness of space or awe.
Such use does invite confusion, especially as their comments are
apt to be isolated and presented as aphorism. I’m certainly
confused about their meaning. As I don’t know how they
intended “mystic,” I was suggesting non-supernaturalist uses of
the term, particularly as regards Einstein’s “cosmic” feeling.
My contention is that any non-supernaturalistic use of the term
is better served by a clearer substitution.
-- Parry
We could agree on using another term, or we could agree on one
interpretation of the term to fit its use. Either way sensai.
john >>
And to follow up on this post in order to filtrate out possible
confusion, i didn't 'really' think you were derailing me, nor
was I being an ass.
where ' X ' = italics
Dale Houstman
"johnqadamsiii" <johnqadams...@yahoo.com.invalid> wrote in message
> That's right, those universecentrically aligned bastards.
> To me though, the more we examine the universe the more elegant
> it appears.
I think this is perfectly true. An example of this is the gain (really) in
elegance of Darwinism over creation myth. Evolution is an incredibly poetic
and graceful consideration, in the sense that it shows movement across time
without limiting that motion. The incredible diversity (which humans are so
busy eliminating) that has arisen from what are really a few simple
principles has always been marvelous to me, and I still cannot understand
why this idea can't be as appealing as any "boy meets girl, girl eats apple"
story, despite even that story's charms.
>
dmh
johnqadamsiii
>
>"johnqadamsiii" <johnqadams...@yahoo.com.invalid> wrote
in message
>news:0aef9770...@usw-ex0104-025.remarq.com...
>
>
>> To me though, the more we examine the universe the more
elegant
>> it appears.
>
(really) in
>elegance of Darwinism over creation myth. Evolution is an
incredibly poetic
>and graceful consideration, in the sense that it shows movement
across time
>without limiting that motion. The incredible diversity (which
humans are so
>busy eliminating) that has arisen from what are really a few
simple
>principles has always been marvelous to me, and I still cannot
understand
>why this idea can't be as appealing as any "boy meets girl,
girl eats apple"
>story, despite even that story's charms.
>>
I agree, it is a wonderous thing to reflect upon. But even the
small processes tend to be just as marvelous, to me - from the
spiralling nautilus to the spider's entrapping web of near
invisible geometry. From such examples we realize yet again the
- dare i say - elegant constituency everywhere in the world
around us, and the math was always there waiting for us to
interpret it in vivid structures.
Parry
> I wasn't so much trying to detach the notion of something
> supernatural, there again depending on what you mean exactly,
> from the term mysticism,
Again, for “supernatural,” I would defer to a typical dictionary
definition: “existing by, due to or exercising powers beyond the laws of
nature; of or by God, spirits, demons, ghosts. fairies, etc.” This, I
think, is how the word is commonly used and understood.
Are you saying these scientists, or some of them -- you listed
Heisenberg, Schroedinger, Einstein, De Broglie, Pauli, Jeans, Plank, and
Eddington -- did mean the word in an occult sense? Does the question
become: why were they given to mysticism? Presumably they were for the
same reasons other people are. Or perhaps the cosmic feeling is a hazard
of the profession, a thing physicists succumb to the way brain surgeons
develop compulsive habits.
> so much as using the term as it was
> used historically by some mystics themselves, and as i pointed
> out, was seperating out oui ja, astrology, and other dragnet
> material. So, no, i wasn't giving anything specialized meaning - merely trying to clarify from an
> "archeological" perspective.
What is unclear is what is left after the dragnet material is
subtracted. Either the scientists you cited clung to a slippery kind of
supernaturalism (a “mysticism of the gaps,” so to speak) or they
borrowed the word for non-supernaturalistic use (possibly along the
lines I’ve already suggested: “moved by an oceanic feeling” etc.).
> > > Wolfgang Pauli and
> > > Carl Jung in fact often worked closely together on such
> > > questionable topics to you im sure as "synchronicity".
> >
> > What were the fruits of their labours?
>
> If you are looking for practical results and every day
> applications, i don't know of many. What are the fruits of
> labour for other painters, writers, philosophers, and theorists?
That’s an easy one: painting, writing, philosophy, etc. As Pauli
intrudes on our conversation solely because of his standing as a
scientist, one would hope he was producing science in this case; for
instance, testable predictions. But I haven’t read up on this stuff, so
I don’t know what opinion Pauli was eventually led to by his research.
> And point wasn't that synchronicity was
> 'correct'.
It’s an interesting enough idea, from the little I know of it. W.S.
Burroughs used to refer to synchronicity in a way that speaks to how we
ascribe meaning to events.
> The child is very curious and mesmirized with its "universe", less so with the callous 'reality' it inevitably
> is taught to
> face growing up within most environments.
It looks like we’re getting on to a whole other topic here, but it does
seem a rule of parents and teachers that it’s necessary to lie to
children.
> > The universe must
> > seem less elegant today then to those who thought the Earth was
> a
> > perfect sphere around which everything else moved in perfect
> circles.
>
> That's right, those universecentrically aligned bastards.
> To me though, the more we examine the universe the more elegant
> it appears. That's up to the individual if they rather consider
> it a trailer park of pale tedium, and perfectly fine.
>
> > > But of course most adjectives we use to apply to the
> > > universe could be regarded as opinion, even the phrase
> comprised of solid matter.
> >
> > The solidity of matter seems more perception than opinion. It’s
> more
> > than just an opinion that a falling anvil will bust your head.
>
> It's common sense my dear Parry. But i refer to the microscopic, and beyond, in comparison to the
> macroscopic world, and the
> evaluation of what the nature of matter really is, beyond our
> everyday adaptation of that 'reality' we have come to perceive
> (within the one slice of spectral EM radiation we see).
I realize that but, as I got to in the next sentence, I had intended the
word “opinion” to connote value-judgment.
> > But
> > “elegant,” like “beautiful,” is pure value-judgment. Sure, you
> might
> > think the universe is beautiful, but then some slick operator
> shows you
> > one so much prettier it makes this one looks like a low-rent
> trailer
> > park. And it only costs twice as much.
>
> Im not sure where you were aiming at with that. Was it at the
> physical theorist?
No, just trying to spruce up my post with the introduction of a shady
character. My assertion is simply that the “elegance,” like the
“beauty,” of the universe is a subjective rather than objective quality.
> What person relies on the subjective valuing
> of the world according to another's scheme of its theoretical
> action-interaction?
I think there is a tandem for the valuing and the theory that may apply
for everyone to a degree. Whatever the prevailing cosmology, those who
subscribe to it will think it most elegant, and consider its elegance to
reflect on its correctness. Heliocentrism must have seemed very elegant,
and theories to the contrary must have seemed messy and menacing. Even
today, there are competing cosmologies. Theists will argue that their
theory of the universe is the most elegant, implying that it is
therefore more likely correct. I think they’re talking through their
hair shirts, of course. One is liable, at some point in their
experience, to find elegance or beauty in virtually anything, and this
appreciation is not indicative of anything factual about the object
under consideration.
> I simply express that what i perceive of it
> to be is elegant - symmetrically, mathematically - the
> fairground of all complexities and enchantments. Surely you
> don't have to agree.
Or disagree. There’s no sense debating whether the universe is elegant
or a botch-job. To re-trace our steps: it was suggested that the
perceived elegance of physical laws moved certain physicists to
mysticism. If by “mysticism” they meant something occult (I’m still not
clear on this), then they considered elegance to be proof of the
supernatural. I’m suggesting only that they would have had to abandon
any standard of proof and reached that conclusion for reasons other than
science.
[snip]
> And
> moreover, this was no
> reference (in my referencing them) to mere feelings of vastness
> of space or awe.
My head’s starting to hurt. To be clear, and possibly pedantic, I have
been referring to how the listed physicists may have used the term
“mysticism,” not to how you use it, especially since you don’t use it.
> We could agree on using another term, or we could agree on one
> interpretation of the term to fit its use. Either way sensai.
>
> john
Let’s not drag a new term into this. And whatever we may decide
“mysticism” to mean, the questions remain: what did these physicists
mean when they used the word? Did they each mean something different? Is
their usage enough to rehabilitate the term into something respectable?
I won’t fuel the confusion with more speculation. Not right now, at
least.
-- Parry
Parry
>
> Parry (pa...@zxOMITmail.com) writes:
> > To me, it appears that he, for whatever reason, adopts any position
> > which he believes absolves himself of having to know what he’s talkin
> > about or understand what anyone else is talking about.
>
> I am 30 years of age. Given the average lifespan of a human being, I have
> 45 more years of life. It sickens me to think that for the next 40 years
> I am going to have to listen to joyless, paranoid people theorize about me
> endlessly, all the while ignoring their own foibles -- or worse,
> pretending they have none.
Two things. First, I freely admit to having thirteen and a half foibles,
though the half one is really more peccadillo than foible. Is this
relevant? I can’t say, because I don’t know what you’re talking about.
Second, you can sleep easy knowing that I haven’t framed you with a
theory. At least nothing I would call a theory. I described only the
practical effects of your posts, and made a point not to speculate on
the reasons for them. This is what I would call a theory:
> The only theory I have regarding her behavior is that she's dealing with
> some sort of personal trauma by projecting it on to me.
I don’t see how this sort of speculation serves any good so I didn’t get
into it myself. Maybe you should apologize to Cythera? Is there any
chance she’d think you were being sincere if you did?
> If you really do understand why Cythera tries to communicate with me, and
> why she does so in this extremely bizarre way, I would love to hear your
> theories. Share, by all means.
This is something Cythera has explained explicitly. She has found that
trying to communicate with you is futile but sometimes finds it
necessary to follow-up your posts, if only to counteract something you
wrote. Dale does much the same.
> > Most newsgroups have their trolls, but it seems unusual that
> > this group has one so permanent and prolific.
>
> Someone has to keep you people insane. You're all so stoic, reserved, and
> serious. Is this where surrealism has taken us? What happened to the joy
> and playfulness surrealism once was?
Well, surrealism was always serious. Aside from that, you forget that
this group does not pretend to represent surrealism, and do not
recognize the group’s playfulness. This has all been gone over before. I
don’t find the group unduly serious and don’t understand why you think
the group should be exclusively frivolous.
> Frankly, coming in here is like
> walking into a kindergarden and finding out that it's nap-time all day,
> every day.
So why do it?
-- Parry
>
> Presumably we each have our vision of surrealism. Mine -- while the most
> amusing -- is, alas, the least popular. Such is the heavy burden I carry.
> Oh woe, the ceaseless struggle that I etcetera, etcetera.
>
> Nik
> --
> "Reason is and ought to be the slave of passions." -- David Hume
> The Nik Maack Art Gallery
> http://www.nikart.com
johnqa...@my-deja.com
pa...@zxOMITmail.com wrote:
> johnqadamsiii <johnqadams...@yahoo.com.invalid> wrote:
> > I wasn't so much trying to detach the notion of something
> > supernatural, there again depending on what you mean exactly,
> > from the term mysticism,
>
> Again, for “supernatural,” I would defer to a typical dictionary
> definition: “existing by, due to or exercising powers beyond the laws
of
> nature; of or by God, spirits, demons, ghosts. fairies, etc.” This, I
> think, is how the word is commonly used and understood.
>
> Are you saying these scientists, or some of them -- you listed
> Heisenberg, Schroedinger, Einstein, De Broglie, Pauli, Jeans, Plank,
and
> Eddington -- did mean the word in an occult sense?
Then i suppose (although you hastily forgot to mention Sherrington)the
meaning was not well in accordance of your dictionary finding - most
all probably attributed nature to a larger extension of itself,
unseeable except through one's self//untuition/instinct/inner
(collective) knowledge. When either of them mentioned god, if they did
(some did), it was usually in reference to a greater component we lie
part of and intwined with - the greater whole, the core of existence,
what-not. And i believe the holding of some of these opinions are not
exactly crackpot driven or housed in disease and corrosion of reason
any more than discussions of big bang theories, superstring, multi-
dimensional universes, multiple universes, and parallel universes, and
similar. We may not ever arrive at an acceptable scenerio of these
things strictly through science and that is why other philosophies on
the subject come into being.
When something looks good arithmetically, it doesn't always match
reality, experience, nor may not prove much conclusively, as is the
case with some of the math of these unproven theories.
Yet i do *understand* the scientific principle and the importance of
proof and logic; I've had a fair share of college sciences and math.
>Does the question
> become: why were they given to mysticism?
The previous begins to describe the angle they were coming from.
>Presumably they were for the
> same reasons other people are. Or perhaps the cosmic feeling is a
hazard
> of the profession, a thing physicists succumb to the way brain
surgeons
> develop compulsive habits.
I think this lies in the subjective value-judgement domain or subset
thereof.
> > so much as using the term as it was
> > used historically by some mystics themselves, and as i pointed
> > out, was seperating out oui ja, astrology, and other dragnet
> > material. So, no, i wasn't giving anything specialized meaning -
merely trying to clarify from an
> > "archeological" perspective.
>
> What is unclear is what is left after the dragnet material is
> subtracted. Either the scientists you cited clung to a slippery kind
of
> supernaturalism (a “mysticism of the gaps,” so to speak) or they
> borrowed the word for non-supernaturalistic use (possibly along the
> lines I’ve already suggested: “moved by an oceanic feeling” etc.).
I can understand the confusion, considering what has been written about
mysticism and the modern era of psychic advice hotlines sprouting about
everywhere like plague, so I'll advance a little distinction towards
the bottom, but maybe the word is evolving into a vaporous obscurity
that has been too far outstretched.
> > > > Wolfgang Pauli and
> > > > Carl Jung in fact often worked closely together on such
> > > > questionable topics to you im sure as "synchronicity".
> > >
> > > What were the fruits of their labours?
> >
> > If you are looking for practical results and every day
> > applications, i don't know of many. What are the fruits of
> > labour for other painters, writers, philosophers, and theorists?
>
> That’s an easy one: painting, writing, philosophy, etc. As Pauli
> intrudes on our conversation solely because of his standing as a
> scientist, one would hope he was producing science in this case; for
> instance, testable predictions. But I haven’t read up on this stuff,
so
> I don’t know what opinion Pauli was eventually led to by his research.
Since i haven't read much of it myself, I don't know precisely what he
was led to, or if it really need fall within the catergory of hard
science because of previous work done as a scientist, as much as it
could be called a philosophical endeavor of some variety, or
philosophical approach to events, and it most likely had some logic
behind it or he would not have pursued it in the first place. Whether
he failed to eventually arrive at acceptable results wasn't even at
issue, and because he was a scientist does not negate my original
point.
> > And point wasn't that synchronicity was
> > 'correct'.
>
> It’s an interesting enough idea, from the little I know of it. W.S.
> Burroughs used to refer to synchronicity in a way that speaks to how
we
> ascribe meaning to events.
And there you have it.
> > The child is very curious and mesmirized with its "universe", less
so with the callous 'reality' it inevitably
> > is taught to
> > face growing up within most environments.
>
> It looks like we’re getting on to a whole other topic here, but it
does
> seem a rule of parents and teachers that it’s necessary to lie to
> children.
I was merely explaining further my opinion revolving around the
*innocence* with which a child sees the world and your analogy
pertaining to seeing the world as flat (*ignorance* of facts). I can
perceive this in one of two possible ways: in the first you are
stretching my words into the final conclusion that "most teachers and
parents lie to children" (which of course i did not intend to say); in
the other we 'lie' in perfect mystical unity with respect to one
another.
Excuse my lack of objectivism, Mrs. Aynn Rand!
> > What person relies on the subjective valuing
> > of the world according to another's scheme of its theoretical
> > action-interaction?
>
> I think there is a tandem for the valuing and the theory that may
apply
> for everyone to a degree. Whatever the prevailing cosmology, those who
> subscribe to it will think it most elegant, and consider its elegance
to
> reflect on its correctness. Heliocentrism must have seemed very
elegant,
> and theories to the contrary must have seemed messy and menacing. Even
> today, there are competing cosmologies. Theists will argue that their
> theory of the universe is the most elegant, implying that it is
> therefore more likely correct. I think they’re talking through their
> hair shirts, of course. One is liable, at some point in their
> experience, to find elegance or beauty in virtually anything, and
this
> appreciation is not indicative of anything factual about the object
> under consideration.
Right, Im not proposing any theory of superior elegance. The reason why
i find it quite possible to find beauty (yes a subjective opinion)
within any one thing is because every one thing is comprised of,
through numbers, geometry, chemistry, biology, etc., the same
foundational workings, yet also unique in shape and design in largely
varying degrees. The whole interaction at each level gaining in size is
intriguing to note (to me) and there is a certain symmetry in
everything, seen from that perspective. Now, are such interworkings
mere opinion? No more so than insiting from me that "water won't kill
weeds" - but like i say - you may regard that aspect as elegant or
bland. I chose one, and you objected.
> > I simply express that what i perceive of it
> > to be is elegant - symmetrically, mathematically - the
> > fairground of all complexities and enchantments. Surely you
> > don't have to agree.
>
> Or disagree. There’s no sense debating whether the universe is elegant
> or a botch-job.
Oops.
>To re-trace our steps: it was suggested that the
> perceived elegance of physical laws moved certain physicists to
> mysticism. If by “mysticism” they meant something occult (I’m still
not
> clear on this), then they considered elegance to be proof of the
> supernatural. I’m suggesting only that they would have had to abandon
> any standard of proof and reached that conclusion for reasons other
than
> science.
Now, i didn't say it "moved" them to mysticism. Obviously they would
have to abandon the usual and accepted objective scientific approach
used to describe experience in that manner.
> [snip]
>
> > And
> > moreover, this was no
> > reference (in my referencing them) to mere feelings of vastness
> > of space or awe.
>
> My head’s starting to hurt. To be clear, and possibly pedantic, I have
> been referring to how the listed physicists may have used the term
> “mysticism,” not to how you use it, especially since you don’t use it.
Wrong, when did i say that? I belive I said I don't use it to describe
myself especially with the controversial connotations that come served
with it. My idea of it is closely suited to their's, i'm fairly
certain. I might suggest reading up on it if you are genuinely curious
in expanding the strength of your opinion of it. Some centuries old
organizations or groups were somewhat private in their sharing of
information (for obvious reasons) and continue to be, however (but at
the same time were and continue to be commited towards some variety of
enacting *common* positive change).
> > We could agree on using another term, or we could agree on one
> > interpretation of the term to fit its use. Either way sensai.
> >
> > john
>
> Let’s not drag a new term into this. And whatever we may decide
> “mysticism” to mean, the questions remain: what did these physicists
> mean when they used the word? Did they each mean something different?
Is
> their usage enough to rehabilitate the term into something
respectable?
> I won’t fuel the confusion with more speculation. Not right now, at
> least.
>
> -- Parry
Actually, i find the usuage respectable, their's, mine, other
scientists, and poets I've mentioned. Mysticism in this sense adheres
to no stringent belief system or dogma and is not considered a
religion. It could be considered a pursuit of knowledge and to know the
innermost nature of life. It isn't a speculative philosphy, or doesn't
intend to be, and takes no pride in belief of an all powerful
supernatural something or other, because within the typical philosophy
there are no such contradictions as those commonly adhered to (thinking
in terms of the Breton qoute perhaps) and the attempt is to unshroud
mystery, not thrive upon ignorance. This has always been my general
opinion of it, in that sense.
And with another qoute from Einstein, if i might:
"The most beautiful and most profound emotion we can experience, is
the sensation of the mystical. It is the source of all true science. He
to whom the emotion is a stranger, who can no longer wonder and stand
rapt in awe, is as good as dead. To know that what is inpenetrable to
us really exists, manifesting itself as the highest wisdom and the most
radiant beauty which our dull faculties can comprehend only in their
primitive forms, this knowledge, this feeling is the center of true
experience."
I believe I've stated my exertions completely enough now. If you wish
i can still post some essays written by these physicists on mysticism
and science. I assumed you didn't afterall.
john
Dale Houstman
"Parry" <pa...@zxOMITmail.com> wrote in message
news:399B20...@zxOMITmail.com...
> Nikolaus Maack wrote:
> >
>
> I don't see how this sort of speculation serves any good so I didn't get
> into it myself. Maybe you should apologize to Cythera? Is there any
> chance she'd think you were being sincere if you did?
Sorry to speak for cythera (and I don't!), but I don't see that an apology
would do any good, or is necessary in essence. The only real "solution"
would be an observable and lengthy "conversion" in Nik's persistent and
aggresive contrariness for the sake of contrariness. This would be more
satisfying than any one-time mea culpa from a person whom we havbe learned
to disbelieve.
>
> This is something Cythera has explained explicitly. She has found that
> trying to communicate with you is futile but sometimes finds it
> necessary to follow-up your posts, if only to counteract something you
> wrote. Dale does much the same.
Cythera is more persistent. I both admire and admonish her for this. I do
think - for the most part (and forgive me my illiberal stance) - that Nik is
beyond the pale, most essentially due to his advocacy of self-contradictory
postures that have so corrupted his ability to think on any subject without
defenses that no amount of discussion can get around that - really -
religious usage of language. It's a longstanding problem, and involves his
rather sociopathic usage of the language to the point he seems unable to
comprehend the simplest points, so that one might explain endlessly and
frequently on some subject (i.e. Breton's position vis a vis mysticism), and
only be rewarded by Nik's tendency to reiterate rather dim verbal tics.
> > Someone has to keep you people insane. You're all so stoic, reserved,
and
> > serious. Is this where surrealism has taken us? What happened to the
joy
> > and playfulness surrealism once was?
>
> Well, surrealism was always serious. Aside from that, you forget that
> this group does not pretend to represent surrealism, and do not
> recognize the group's playfulness. This has all been gone over before. I
> don't find the group unduly serious and don't understand why you think
> the group should be exclusively frivolous.
And he ignores - again - that all of us have posted poems and images of a
sometimes startling playfulness, almost all of which he fails to comment
upon. This appears hypocritical on his part. And serious mistakes of
commentary (Nik's for instance) require some degree of serious response.
But - and this has been explained to him also - in our private lives - and
with those whom we see face-to-face - immense amounts of time are spent
exclusively on this very playing, and on rather humorous adventures.
> > Frankly, coming in here is like
> > walking into a kindergarden and finding out that it's nap-time all day,
> > every day.
>
> So why do it?
He still hopes to steal our lunch money.
dmh
Nikolaus Maack
> This is something Cythera has explained explicitly. She has found that
> trying to communicate with you is futile but sometimes finds it
> necessary to follow-up your posts, if only to counteract something you
> wrote. Dale does much the same.
Which is a waste of time. Even if ten billion lurkers read this
newsgroup, do we really have to worry about whether or not they get the
wrong impression of surrealism? Say I write a totally tongue in cheek
description of surrealism...
"Surrealism is about killing and eating babies. It's up to all good
surrealists to get jobs in hospitals so we have access to babies. Big BBQ
at my place this weekend!"
Would Dale and Cythera feel the need to step forward and explain that this
isn't true? Almost certainly. Is this silly of them? Very.
> Well, surrealism was always serious.
I clearly disagree with you. And even if you could demonstrate that it
was serious, I would argue that to take ANYTHING too seriously is asking
for trouble.
On a number of occasions I have said in this newsgroup, CAN YOU LAUGH AT
YOURSELF? This, to me, is one of the most important skills a person can
possess. Can you mock yourself? Can you make fun of yourself?
If you can't mock surrealism, even as you believe it, what good is it to
you? Why should you be able to mock only the beliefs of your "enemies"?
Christians are stupid! Surrealists aren't?
Can you make fun of yourself?
This question is inevitably met with dead silence. Dale can't make fun of
himself. Nor can Cythera. Nor can Brandon. Can you? They spend their
days putting forward a very serious, informed face. To what end? To look
good? For who?
If I can't call myself a fat, stupid, stinky-footed loon with delusions of
grandeur and a profound vision of madness, what good am I? If you can't
mock yourself, what good are you?
I believe human beings are irrational in the extreme. When I see people
walking around looking very adult and grown up and rational, I know for a
fact that at home they're smearing peanut butter on their ankles so their
dog can lick it off. Rationality is always a facade.
Yes, people aren't ALWAYS serious in here. Occasionally they make a joke.
But almost always at someone else's expense. Never at their own.
>> Frankly, coming in here is like
>> walking into a kindergarden and finding out that it's nap-time all day,
>> every day.
>
> So why do it?
For me, not for you. I need a place to spew my thoughts. Sometimes I get
useful thoughts back. I've chosen this place because it best reflects my
mind at the moment. I used to do it in ott.singles. Now I do it here.
Louise
Nikolaus Maack <ac...@FreeNet.Carleton.CA> skrev i en
nyhedsmeddelelse:8n57rk$l48$1...@freenet9.carleton.ca...
>Frankly, coming in here is like
> walking into a kindergarden and finding out that it's nap-time all day,
> every day.
Actually it's more like the Jerry Springer show. The topic of the week is
"I'm a real surrealist and you're just stupid because you don't share my
views". The verbal chairs are constantly flying, and it's very entertaining,
actually.
Dale Houstman
"cythera" <cyt...@my-deja.com> wrote in message
news:8nhegt$imj$1...@nnrp1.deja.com...
> I've got to get ready and go out, but for now am going to say that
> what I, in part, (and I think you too?) am protesting is mediocrity, a
> sort of virus that Nik seems proud to represent.
Certainly. But - at some point - it ("discussing" subjects with Nik) gets to
be like yelling at a urinal for not listening closely enough. This is why -
contrary to Nik's apprehension of his importance - I rarely talk to him
anymore. He is aggravating without ever achieving even the modicum of
interest for me, except (maybe) as a pugnacious pretender to a cognitivie
ability he seems to have long ago abandoned in favor of self-satisfied
fatheadessness. A freak in other words, although absent the carnival
attraction.
One notices - for example - that when he is mainly ignored he is reduced to
either silence or his furtive little exchanges with the dog chunks that blow
over from poutingdumbass and other sub-absurdist chambers of yawn.
Disenfranchised from our minimal interest in his fluttering inanities, he
becomes indistinguishable from any bad high school writer who confuses
dyslexia with verbal brilliance. It is our attentions that inflate that sad
brown bag, and little else.
At some point, these "discussions" (not much more illuminating than
monologues with a badly constructed hand puppet) have diminishing returns,
and Nik (to my mind) has proven he is either by intuition or willfulness,
incapable of intelligent discourse. It is not a matter of his disagreeing
with the general run of things; this is both interesting and necessary; but
of his lack of responsiveness, and his inability to see himself in any light
but as the victim of our "seriousness" and as the Great Clown Prince whose
job it is to rescue those he obviously has no regard for from problems that
simply do not exist.
I just say the building material in this case is inadequate for the job.
Personally, I just wish someone would shoot the useless and ungainly beast,
and spare us his awkward poises. But - in the meantime - ignoring him
(except in those cases when he is misrepresenting us and surrealism in
general to someone who might benefit from at least a dollop of information
rather than calumny and "joyful nihilism." But that's public service...
dmh
brandon...@my-deja.com
> Personally, I just wish someone would shoot the useless and ungainly
> beast, and spare us his awkward poises.
Please! Have some respect for the sloths!!! They may be useless and
ungainly beast but they are beautiful and they are one of my favorite
species! Comparing them to Nik is like comparing an elephant to a pile
of used tires*!
*All apologies to those who admire used tires.
brandon...@my-deja.com
http://www.sloth.com/asloth.html
Dale Houstman
<brandon...@my-deja.com> wrote in message
news:8niep1$ne0$1...@nnrp1.deja.com...
> Dale Houstman wrote:
> > Personally, I just wish someone would shoot the useless and ungainly
> > beast, and spare us his awkward poises.
>
> Please! Have some respect for the sloths!!! They may be useless and
> ungainly beast but they are beautiful and they are one of my favorite
> species! Comparing them to Nik is like comparing an elephant to a pile
> of used tires*!
True. I went to the local zoo this week (courtesy of our company's
largesse), and saw my favorite animal, the tapir. It was a rather large
specimen, fat and sleeping in the heat and smelling of what such things
smell. Its nobility, in comparison to our Ottawannabe, was apparent.
I apologize to my ideal, the Giant Sloth...
dmh
Nikolaus Maack
> I've got to get ready and go out, but for now am going to say that
> what I, in part, (and I think you too?) am protesting is mediocrity, a
> sort of virus that Nik seems proud to represent.
Who is more mediocre? The shit-for-brains loser who vomits on the
sidewalk and calls it art, or the shit-for-brains critic who takes the
time to write a lengthy essay, explaining why vomit on the sidewalk is not
art?
"You're just doing this for the attention!"
"You're just saying that to give me attention!"
It all reminds me of a washing machine full of barbed wire -- it's a
vicious rinse cycle.
Dale Houstman
> In article <399bca6e$0$72535$65a9...@news.citilink.com>,
> "Dale Houstman" <dm...@citilink.com> wrote:
> >
> > "Parry" <pa...@zxOMITmail.com> wrote in message
> > news:399B20...@zxOMITmail.com...
> > > Nikolaus Maack wrote:
>
> > > that trying to communicate with you is futile but sometimes finds
> > > it necessary to follow-up your posts, if only to counteract
> > > something you wrote. Dale does much the same.
> >
>
> for your not saying -- and never having said,-- "I told you so".
> :)
you're welcome of course. I wouldn't think of saying "I told you so" if only
because I too had the mistaken (if generous) idea that - at some reasonable
distance in time - a decent exchange of opinions might lead to some
understanding on Nik's part, or even on my own. I suppose I did this
because - to me at any rate - surrealism (whether organized or intuitive) is
worth the effort. It took me months of slogging through that cognitive muck
to realize that Nik is an impenetrable wall of adolescent murk. The fact
that he is swtiched on and off by that UberMom, A.C. should have been a
large clue of course, but let's just say this particular Theseus was blind
to thread. The only reason to occasionally dip into that slag pool now is -
as Brandon suggests- because Nik is a joke, and watching him utilize his
corrupted linguistic "abilities" affords the same degree of passing humor
one derives from watching a chimp dance, until it dawns upon you that it is
neurologically damaged and is, in fact, merely twitching in tune to
misfires.
dmh
Parry
>
> In article <399B20...@zxOMITmail.com>,
> pa...@zxOMITmail.com wrote:
> > johnqadamsiii <johnqadams...@yahoo.com.invalid> wrote:
> > > I wasn't so much trying to detach the notion of something
> > > supernatural, there again depending on what you mean exactly,
> > > from the term mysticism,
> >
> > Again, for “supernatural,” I would defer to a typical dictionary
> > definition: “existing by, due to or exercising powers beyond the laws
> of
> > nature; of or by God, spirits, demons, ghosts. fairies, etc.” This, I
> > think, is how the word is commonly used and understood.
> >
> > Are you saying these scientists, or some of them -- you listed
> > Heisenberg, Schroedinger, Einstein, De Broglie, Pauli, Jeans, Plank,
> and
> > Eddington -- did mean the word in an occult sense?
>
> Then i suppose (although you hastily forgot to mention Sherrington) the
> meaning was not well in accordance of your dictionary finding - most
> all probably attributed nature to a larger extension of itself,
> unseeable except through one's self//untuition/instinct/inner
> (collective) knowledge. When either of them mentioned god, if they did
> (some did), it was usually in reference to a greater component we lie
> part of and intwined with - the greater whole, the core of existence,
> what-not.
This is what I was talking about earlier, how some scientists play a
definitional shell game is which god is equated with nature, or
something similar. This is nothing new, of course; you’ll likely find
such hedged talk as far back at least as Lao-Tse.
> And i believe the holding of some of these opinions are not
> exactly crackpot driven or housed in disease and corrosion of reason
> any more than discussions of big bang theories, superstring, multi-
> dimensional universes, multiple universes, and parallel universes, and
> similar.
Whether or not the opinions are as crackpot as the big bang theory
rather depends on the specific opinion in question. Undoubtedly some
scientists have been mystical in the word’s crassest sense. In any
event, one can contemplate the interconnection of things and expose the
follies of science without burying their face in the shroud of
mysticism. Charles Fort’s books did this nicely. The city is ripping up
my driveway because my kitchen sink drips.
> We may not ever arrive at an acceptable scenerio of these
> things strictly through science and that is why other philosophies on
> the subject come into being.
I’m not so presumptuous as to condemn physicists of Einstein’s
generation for their use of a word; but today, after decades of
renascent mysticism and superstition (the center of the blast being the
US), I think one should be conscientious to avoid even the appearance of
promoting such a debilitating concept as mysticism. Why should the
unknown be called mysticism? What’s wrong with the word “unknown”?
(These are rhetorical questions, by the way, and don’t demand an answer.
I can see you’ve wearied of this topic.)
[snip]
> > To be clear, and possibly pedantic, I have
> > been referring to how the listed physicists may have used the term
> > “mysticism,” not to how you use it, especially since you don’t use it.
>
> Wrong, when did i say that? I belive I said I don't use it to describe
> myself especially with the controversial connotations that come served
> with it.
Same difference. You wrote: “For these reasons and more i try to avoid
using the term mysticism, myself.” This is all I meant, not that you
never allow your tongue to form the syllables.
> My idea of it is closely suited to their's, i'm fairly
> certain. I might suggest reading up on it if you are genuinely curious
> in expanding the strength of your opinion of it.
I’m familiar enough with this stuff, but I was open to any new
interpretation you might offer.
> > And whatever we may decide
> > “mysticism” to mean, the questions remain: what did these physicists
> > mean when they used the word? Did they each mean something different?
> Is
> > their usage enough to rehabilitate the term into something
> respectable?
>
> Actually, i find the usuage respectable, their's, mine, other
> scientists, and poets I've mentioned. Mysticism in this sense adheres
> to no stringent belief system or dogma and is not considered a
> religion. It could be considered a pursuit of knowledge and to know the
> innermost nature of life. It isn't a speculative philosphy, or doesn't
> intend to be, and takes no pride in belief of an all powerful
> supernatural something or other, because within the typical philosophy
> there are no such contradictions as those commonly adhered to (thinking
> in terms of the Breton qoute perhaps) and the attempt is to unshroud
> mystery, not thrive upon ignorance. This has always been my general
> opinion of it, in that sense.
To arrive at this definition drained of the supernatural, one has to
strip from “mysticism” the notions most commonly associated with it --
communion with god, attaining knowledge of spiritual truths, and so on.
It remains for me a very specialized definition, and one that lends
itself to confusion (or mystification). But now I’m only repeating
myself.
> And with another qoute from Einstein, if i might:
>
> "The most beautiful and most profound emotion we can experience, is
> the sensation of the mystical. It is the source of all true science. He
> to whom the emotion is a stranger, who can no longer wonder and stand
> rapt in awe, is as good as dead. To know that what is inpenetrable to
> us really exists, manifesting itself as the highest wisdom and the most
> radiant beauty which our dull faculties can comprehend only in their
> primitive forms, this knowledge, this feeling is the center of true
> experience."
I don’t see that this is essentially different from what I speculated
these physicists might have meant when using the term. I suggested
“enthralled by the vastness of the cosmos”; a little tailoring yields
“in awe of the apparent order of the cosmos.” Saying “a sense of wonder”
would likely have sufficed. I read Einstein’s gist as being simply that
it is the power of this feeling that attracts physicists to the task of
uncovering the laws of nature.
> I believe I've stated my exertions completely enough now. If you wish
> i can still post some essays written by these physicists on mysticism
> and science. I assumed you didn't afterall.
If you think the essays are interesting or illuminating, please post
them. I agree that we’ve probably exhausted this point of discussion,
and don’t wish to be repetitive.
Beware of wizard’s caps: they may only cover pointy heads.
Dale Houstman
"Parry" <pa...@zxOMITmail.com> wrote in message
> johnqa...@my-deja.com wrote:
> >
> Whether or not the opinions are as crackpot as the big bang theory
> rather depends on the specific opinion in question. Undoubtedly some
> scientists have been mystical in the word's crassest sense. In any
> event, one can contemplate the interconnection of things and expose the
> follies of science without burying their face in the shroud of
> mysticism. Charles Fort's books did this nicely. The city is ripping up
> my driveway because my kitchen sink drips.
>
>
(and others) seem to experience a "fatigue of reason" in which they become
frustrated with either the pace or the solutions of reason, and so jump onto
the "ouija field." Kubler-Ross went beyond her reasonable (if rather
limiting) steps of grief and right into after-life nonsense. We won't
discuss Leary, who got on that 60s jetplane and went directly to the cartoon
reel. Libby, and others I suppose. It's intriguing. But then it's probably a
common process - a lot of people seem to "get Jesus" as they approach the
great unknown of death and anonymity. More's the pity.
dmh
Nikolaus Maack
> Kubler-Ross went beyond her reasonable (if rather
> limiting) steps of grief and right into after-life nonsense.
Her autobiography "The Wheel of Life" really bothered me. The first half
describes an intelligent, exciting, interesting woman, challenging the
medical world's notion of death. The terminally ill should not be stuffed
into the back wards, isolated, miserable, lied to, and seen as the
failures of doctors who didn't try hard enough. The taboo of death has to
be confronted. These people have to be treated with respect.
This work of hers struck me as absolutely brilliant.
But when her autobiography started talking about near death experiences, I
started to get worried. When she went into chanelling, I realized she was
lost. And when she spoke of "guardian angels", fairies, and being an "old
soul", I knew she was never coming back -- her brain was gone.
The most telling part of her autobiography is when she talks about her
channeling buddy, Mr B -- I think that's what she called him in the book.
At one point, Kubler-Ross discovers that B has been faking it. Some of
the spirits that "manifested" were in fact some coworkers of hers dressed
up all spooky like.
What does Kubler-Ross conclude, based on this? Well, okay -- B was faking
some of his channeling. But other aspects of his channeling couldn't
possibly be faked! The spirits KNEW too much! They had all the right
answers! How could B have been faking all of it?
And in fact, once she ditches B, she claims to get real, authentic
channelers to talk to those old spirit buddies of hers.
Another aspect of her book that really bothered me was that she
occasionally claimed to "see" her spirit guides in the waking world. That
is, she's walking down the hall of the hospital and a dead patient of hers
manifests and talks to her.
I think it's one thing to talk to "dead people" in dreams, or in a sort of
ritual where you know you are "making it up" to seek guidance -- but when
dead people manifest in front of you and deliver messages and write notes
for you so you can prove to your friends that they really were there...
That sounds suspiciously like a psychotic episode to me.
Also, another fascinating aspect of her descent into mystical madness --
her husband leaves her as she gets deeper and deeper into it. She never
really talks about WHY he left her, but the implication seems to be that
he thought she was going stark, raving insane.
Nik
--
"I dote on myself. There is a lot of me, and all so luscious." -- Whitman
Parry
>
> "Parry" <pa...@zxOMITmail.com> wrote in message
> news:39A389...@zxOMITmail.com...
> > johnqa...@my-deja.com wrote:
> > >
> > rather depends on the specific opinion in question. Undoubtedly some
> > scientists have been mystical in the word's crassest sense. In any
> > event, one can contemplate the interconnection of things and expose the
> > follies of science without burying their face in the shroud of
> > mysticism. Charles Fort's books did this nicely. The city is ripping up
> > my driveway because my kitchen sink drips.
> >
> >
> (and others) seem to experience a "fatigue of reason" in which they become
> frustrated with either the pace or the solutions of reason, and so jump onto
> the "ouija field." Kubler-Ross went beyond her reasonable (if rather
> limiting) steps of grief and right into after-life nonsense. We won't
> discuss Leary, who got on that 60s jetplane and went directly to the cartoon
> reel.
I wonder what effect fame had in catapulting these particular people
into the mystic stratosphere.
> Libby, and others I suppose. It's intriguing. But then it's probably a
> common process - a lot of people seem to "get Jesus" as they approach the
> great unknown of death and anonymity. More's the pity.
Another name that springs to mind is John Mack, the Harvard psychiatrist
who became a star saucerhead.
Scientists aren’t impervious to irrational beliefs, of course, but it’s
impossible to say if such cases are the result of fatigue or were
something inevitable (like people who start a sentence “there’s no one
more skeptical than me, but...”). One stat puts the number of American
scientists with a belief in a personal god at around 7% -- a far smaller
figure than for the general population but that’s still a lot of
scientists (the figure is also significantly smaller than for scientists
of Einstein’s era; and probably fantastically smaller than the period of
Newton, who was a fundamentalist). Fortunately, the work of science (in
the long run at least) doesn’t rely on personal beliefs.
elag
> Scientists aren’t impervious to irrational beliefs, of course, but it’s
> impossible to say if such cases are the result of fatigue or were
> something inevitable (like people who start a sentence “there’s no one
> more skeptical than me, but...”). One stat puts the number of American
> scientists with a belief in a personal god at around 7% -- a far smaller
> figure than for the general population but that’s still a lot of
> scientists (the figure is also significantly smaller than for scientists
> of Einstein’s era; and probably fantastically smaller than the period of
> Newton, who was a fundamentalist). Fortunately, the work of science (in
> the long run at least) doesn’t rely on personal beliefs.
Another interesting statistic:
there are (supposedly) 220,000,000 Athiests
and 840,000,000 "non-religious" people in thje world
...a larger percentage than many people might suppose.
Of course I can't imagine how 'accurate" these statistics are or what
exactly they mean by "non-religious"... and how did they count me?
Dale Houstman
"Parry" <pa...@zxOMITmail.com> wrote in message
> Dale Houstman wrote:
> >
> > "Parry" <pa...@zxOMITmail.com> wrote in message
> > news:39A389...@zxOMITmail.com...
> > > johnqa...@my-deja.com wrote:
> > > >
> > > rather depends on the specific opinion in question. Undoubtedly some
> > > scientists have been mystical in the word's crassest sense. In any
> > > event, one can contemplate the interconnection of things and expose
the
> > > follies of science without burying their face in the shroud of
> > > mysticism. Charles Fort's books did this nicely. The city is ripping
up
> > > my driveway because my kitchen sink drips.
> > >
> > >
> > (and others) seem to experience a "fatigue of reason" in which they
become
> > frustrated with either the pace or the solutions of reason, and so jump
onto
> > the "ouija field." Kubler-Ross went beyond her reasonable (if rather
> > limiting) steps of grief and right into after-life nonsense. We won't
> > discuss Leary, who got on that 60s jetplane and went directly to the
cartoon
> > reel.
>
> I wonder what effect fame had in catapulting these particular people
> into the mystic stratosphere.
Probably they came to believe their own publicity, and felt they had to
constantly up the ante of "discovery" (science moves so slowly at times) so
as to justify all that attention. This is a pretty common phenomenon it
seems.
>
> > Libby, and others I suppose. It's intriguing. But then it's probably a
> > common process - a lot of people seem to "get Jesus" as they approach
the
> > great unknown of death and anonymity. More's the pity.
>
> Another name that springs to mind is John Mack, the Harvard psychiatrist
> who became a star saucerhead.
Oh that idiot! He's particularly odious in that he really screws with
vulnerable people's heads just to squeeze more fame juice from them into his
ego-bowl. I used to spit at him every time he came on screen.
>
> Scientists aren't impervious to irrational beliefs, of course, but it's
> impossible to say if such cases are the result of fatigue or were
> something inevitable (like people who start a sentence "there's no one
> more skeptical than me, but..."). One stat puts the number of American
> scientists with a belief in a personal god at around 7% -- a far smaller
> figure than for the general population but that's still a lot of
> scientists (the figure is also significantly smaller than for scientists
> of Einstein's era; and probably fantastically smaller than the period of
> Newton, who was a fundamentalist). Fortunately, the work of science (in
> the long run at least) doesn't rely on personal beliefs.
>
At least something's going our way!
dmh
Dale Houstman
"elag" <el...@concentric.net> wrote in message
news:39A6A9CB...@concentric.net...
> Parry wrote:
>
> > Scientists aren't impervious to irrational beliefs, of course, but it's
> > impossible to say if such cases are the result of fatigue or were
> > something inevitable (like people who start a sentence "there's no one
> > more skeptical than me, but..."). One stat puts the number of American
> > scientists with a belief in a personal god at around 7% -- a far smaller
> > figure than for the general population but that's still a lot of
> > scientists (the figure is also significantly smaller than for scientists
> > of Einstein's era; and probably fantastically smaller than the period of
> > Newton, who was a fundamentalist). Fortunately, the work of science (in
> > the long run at least) doesn't rely on personal beliefs.
>
>
>
> there are (supposedly) 220,000,000 Athiests
> and 840,000,000 "non-religious" people in thje world
>
> ...a larger percentage than many people might suppose.
> Of course I can't imagine how 'accurate" these statistics are or what
> exactly they mean by "non-religious"... and how did they count me?
From that tiny little plastic tower I helped build near your home. Man, put
some clothes on, you little non-theist!
dmh
Parry
>
> Parry wrote:
>
> > Scientists aren’t impervious to irrational beliefs, of course, but it’s
> > impossible to say if such cases are the result of fatigue or were
> > something inevitable (like people who start a sentence “there’s no one
> > more skeptical than me, but...”). One stat puts the number of American
> > scientists with a belief in a personal god at around 7% -- a far smaller
> > figure than for the general population but that’s still a lot of
> > scientists (the figure is also significantly smaller than for scientists
> > of Einstein’s era; and probably fantastically smaller than the period of
> > Newton, who was a fundamentalist). Fortunately, the work of science (in
> > the long run at least) doesn’t rely on personal beliefs.
>
> Another interesting statistic:
>
> there are (supposedly) 220,000,000 Athiests
> and 840,000,000 "non-religious" people in thje world
>
> ...a larger percentage than many people might suppose.
> Of course I can't imagine how 'accurate" these statistics are or what
> exactly they mean by "non-religious"... and how did they count me?
I’ve seen similar stats: 5% of the world population atheist, but 20%
“without religion or atheist.” (The other 80% encompassed everything
from Christians to Buddhists to animists.) I’m not sure who fits in the
15% window: agnostics, or people who believe a god exists but don’t know
which one it is?
I actually like statistics and the way they provide a sort of x-ray of
the workings of society, so here’s a bit more (mostly from a report on a
survey conducted by the International Social Survey Program based at
National Opinion Research Center, University of Chicago 1991-1993 --
like you care). The US yields strange results, being easily the most
religious of advanced countries (the least religious being East Germany,
Russia, Norway, Slovenia, Great Britain, Hungary, Netherlands, West
Germany, and Austria). Over recent years, the number of American
biblical literalists has fluctuated from 32% to 40% (compare to 7% in
Great Britain). The majority of Americans believe in the existence of
heaven, a god, and life after death; about half believe in the existence
of hell. Nearly a third of college graduates have a creationist
viewpoint, and around 45% believe that God created human beings "pretty
much in (their) present form at one time or another within the last
10,000 years.” Note that these high figures represent the craziest
religious beliefs, those not modified to fit around current scientific
knowledge. Among scientists, only 55% hold to a strict evolutionary
explanation without any participation for a deity (40% see some sort of
divinely guided evolution). In short, it looks like the richest and most
powerful nation is a backwater of superstition.
But the picture isn’t completely miserable. A book published in 1993
said “The current proportion of biblical literalists is 32%, only half
of what it was in 1963, when 65% of Americans said they believed in the
absolute truth of all words in the Bible and that it represented the
actual word of God.” A correlation is made against improved educational
standards. The disparity between the US and other countries is compared
against the Americans’ poor understanding of evolutionary theory.
Dale Houstman
"Nikolaus Maack" <ac...@FreeNet.Carleton.CA> wrote in message
news:8o0kt1$g1e$1...@freenet9.carleton.ca...
> "Dale Houstman" (dm...@citilink.com) writes:
> > Kubler-Ross went beyond her reasonable (if rather
> > limiting) steps of grief and right into after-life nonsense.
>
> describes an intelligent, exciting, interesting woman, challenging the
> medical world's notion of death. The terminally ill should not be stuffed
> into the back wards, isolated, miserable, lied to, and seen as the
> failures of doctors who didn't try hard enough. The taboo of death has to
> be confronted. These people have to be treated with respect.
>
> This work of hers struck me as absolutely brilliant.
>
> But when her autobiography started talking about near death experiences, I
> started to get worried. When she went into chanelling, I realized she was
> lost. And when she spoke of "guardian angels", fairies, and being an "old
> soul", I knew she was never coming back -- her brain was gone.
But the obvious question here, in regards to you, is why? Since you are
always arguing for "believing in the unbelievable" and in defining a dog as
a lightbulb, why do you discover madness in her belief in an afterlife, or -
for that matter - in fairies, time-traveling shoeboxes, and a aluminum black
hole? Seems to me this mode of decayed thought is precisely where your
nihilist philosophy leads to.
I know - I know (and how dull the expectation is by this time): you will
just claim that this is revelatory of your bountiful inconsistency.
Yawn...
el...@concentric.net
Worse news:
the # of Atheists and "non-religious" people is declining. Or maybe
they're just counting differently now. (source: World Almanac 2000)
there are now (supposedly) 180,000,000 Atheists
and 780,000,000 "non-religious" people in the world
At this rate I'll be an Animist or a Zoroastrian in ten years!
A fact that never ceases to gall me. My worst nightmares consist of
America becoming a theocracy ("christian" of course). I'd be burned at
the stake, of course.
At least I live in NYC where "free-thinker" isn't (usually) a bad word.
> But the picture isn’t completely miserable. A book published in 1993
> said “The current proportion of biblical literalists is 32%, only half
> of what it was in 1963, when 65% of Americans said they believed in
the
> absolute truth of all words in the Bible and that it represented the
> actual word of God.” A correlation is made against improved
educational
> standards. The disparity between the US and other countries is
compared
> against the Americans’ poor understanding of evolutionary theory.
We'll take care of that once we Privatize the education system. The
Catholic church will likely submit the low bid.