Drug guide banned @ UTS
Rev Dr Phil Herring
Sinclair) writes:
> p...@cs.uow.edu.au (Rev Dr Phil Herring) writes:
> >So, by your measure, were Byron and Coleridge bimbos? Or would you have
> >it that laudanum doesn't "fry" the mind?
>
> I don't know about bimbos; by my measure, they're just irrelevant.
> Would either have been as accomplished without their druggo escapades?
"As accomplished"? Who can say? I would suggest that their accomplishments
would have been different, but probably no lesser in scope or influence.
Drugs are one kind experience. They change the druggee, perhaps to the
better, perhaps to the worse.
> If somone needs a fix to do something interesting, then I can't be
> bothered with them, personally. (NB: This is not to say that the
> drug-crazed writer produces nothing of worth. For example, W.S.
> Burroughs has covered new ground, but you don't need to be a junkie
> to do that. I was producing dissociated non-linear fiction long before
> I heard of him.)
Curious that you mention Burroughs. After years of using cutups and like
techniques, he wrote "Queer", proving that he can be a lucid, sensitive
writer. Far better to be that, than an experimenter who produced little
that will last beyond his own lifetime.
And here I shall lift up one corner of the threadbare carpet that is
postmodernism, to show all what lies beneath: this respect for the
experimental works of Burroughs is really just a dodge to get out of
having to communicate substance to a reader. If you have nothing to say,
string random sentences or phrases or words together. Some folks will
be impressed. Most of us will simply not bother to read any of it.
> You can bandwidth me in on the effects of laudanum.
Read De Quincey or Coleridge or any of a dozen other writers. Or even
Pynchon's _Gravity's Rainbow_.
> Would you like to live in Phnom Penh? Why not? Are you a bigot?
Well, why wouldn't I like to live in Phnom Penh? It would be fine for a
year or two. Why do you live in Ultimo? You can always live elsewhere.
Adhering to a place you don't like sounds like masochism.
> >>>[phil]
> >>>Note 2: the use (misuse, really, since it's a noun) of "surrealist"
>
> (Is this a misuse like "communist"?)
Communist, therapist, and geologist are all nouns. You said "more surrealist
than you", which requires the adjective "surreal", not the noun.
>>As for Giger, I wouldn't call his work "surreal". Strange, yes; surreal, no.
>
> It's plain that you don't know nearly enough about surrealism to pass
> judgement. Do you know as much about Giger as Giger? He describes himself
> as a surrealist. I assume he'd know his stuff there; wrt his techniques,
> subject matter and results, he also fits my definition of "surrealist"
> (q.v.).
I claim that I am Napoleon. Tomasso agrees that I must be Napoleon, since
I ought to know, and besides, I fit his definition of same. Am I Napoleon?
Or is this simply an appeal to authority?
> You know what I'm talking about when I say "surreal" or "surrealist".
No I don't. You could be totally wrong. I am simply probing you in my
sweet, gentle way.
> I don't go in for those pedantic bullshit games. If you want a definition,
> look it up in a fucking dictionary.
"Fucking dictionary"? Is that a book of definitions of terms related to
sexual intercourse? No matter! I'm not being pedantic, merely rigorous.
I realise that we old codgers in walking frames must seem terribly slow to
you young whipper-snappers, as we shuffle past in our walking frames, but I
assure you that rigour only comes from a careful, considered appraisal of
ideas, not hasty conjectures.
In any case, I think only the most naive theoretician would accept a
_definition_ of surrealism. What interests me more is this: what artworks,
considered collectively, define the surrealist movement?
> >If you _really_ want, I'll give you your critique
>
> No, I don't, since it's obvious that [...]
Well, thank heavens I don't have to write any more than this! Thank you.
> On aus.politics, you claimed that I "needed" "good acid and a couple
> of wild women".
True. I genuinely think that drugs and sex (a blowjob at least!) would
do your outlook a power of good.
> So, should we conclude that the summation of your
> political aspirations?
(You seem to require a sub-editor.)
> Is Rev Dr. Phil gonna try and get elected on
> this platform? I could form "other hypotheses", but they might be
> sensible ones, and then I couldn't wank on about nothing.
Getting elected on the platform of getting Iain Sinclair laid? What a
sterling idea! Roll on the next state election!
> >No, my dear Siredon pisciforme, I don't know what your achievements are.
> >Nobody does. That's why you're salving your ego with attempted insults.
>
> I don't see any attempted insults. I see an attempt to carry on
> a substantial discussion,
In aus.flame?
> but your overdose of jibes (and underdose
> of relevant background) is not makin' it worth my while.
Feel free to desist, anytime.
> You don't know about Gleeson, you don't know about Giger, you entertain
> (or feign) ignorance of the surrealists' work after an arbitrary date,
> you ask for a definition of surrealism, and presumably produce no
> significantly surrealist-influenced work of your own. It still seems
> that I am more surrealist than YOU.
One day you shall realise that I have been _terribly_ surreal all along. I
have simply been to subtle for you, that's all.
-- Phil.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Rev Dr Phil Herring,University of Wollongong, Australia
p...@cs.uow.edu.au This article is copyright (c) 1992 Phil Herring
"My manner of thinking, so you say, cannot be approved. Do you suppose I
care? A poor fool indeed is he who adopts a manner of thinking for others!
My manner of thinking stems straight from my considered reflections; it
holds with my existence, with the way I am made. It is not in my power to
later it; and were it, I'd not do so." Donatien Alphonse Francois de Sade
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Boomerang Mail
>I claim that I am Napoleon. Tomasso agrees that I must be Napoleon, since
>I ought to know, and besides, I fit his definition of same. Am I Napoleon?
>Or is this simply an appeal to authority?
Yes, Phil is Napoleon for the point of argument. However, I'm not sure
that Napoleon's definition of Phil is strong enough to grant him
(Phil) the authority to presume my agreement - still, I don't care.
Isn't authority a form of concensus - by herd mentality?
Iain is Samson, but HE (not Delilah) should stop mutilating his hair!
Actually, I disagree with the ratings given to some of the drugs in
the infamous UTS drug guide. Some were awarded rather more brownie points
than they deserve. And they didn't comment on relative availability...
And then they (in the same O-mag) reviewed one of my subjects - they
grouped it in the wrong School, sampled two students (out of 288) and
didn't mention my famous joke...
Tomasso.
--
Tom Osborn, " Attention EARTHLINGS -
School of Computing Sciences, there is no cause for alarm...
University of Technology, Sydney, ... no causes at all, for that matter "
PO Box 123 Broadway 2007, AUSTRALIA.
Iain Sinclair
>Feel free to desist, anytime.
Oh, OK.
--
Iain Sinclair axo...@socs.uts.edu.au
Brent Curtis
>Curious that you mention Burroughs. After years of using cutups and like
>techniques, he wrote "Queer", proving that he can be a lucid, sensitive
>writer. Far better to be that, than an experimenter who produced little
>that will last beyond his own lifetime.
I'm not fond of the cutup technique, but I disagree that little will last
beyond his lifetime. It is the sort of stuff that uni students will
adore for years. It has all the required qualities - sex, violence,
unreadability, drugs and space aliens.
"Cities of the Red Night," though, was a gem.
Brent.