Back to Taoism
Nikolaus Maack
"Brandon J. Freels" (Fre...@ethergate.com) writes:
> Lets look over Taoist concepts and how they are not Surrealism:
I'm throwing this out to the Buddhists of the net, most of whom have some
understanding of Taoism as well. I'm hoping they can help clear up
some of the major misunderstanding you're suffering from, Brandon.
> The Tao: the way, or the path.
> Surrealism needs no path. Surrealist follow no yellow brick road, but jump
> into the forest in search of the Marvelous.
Taoism is not a path one follows. All that exists follows Tao. Tao is
the flow of the universe. To say that a Taoist chooses Tao is saying a
fish chooses water. We're in it. Tao is everyone and everything and even
this is a lie. The tao that can be described is not The Tao.
To say you jump into the forest in search of the marvelous, is, itself, a
Taoist concept. Of course, you also could stay at home and look for the
marvelous in the fingernail of your right pinky finger. Or in the
movements of sand through an hourglass. Or watching the patterns of TV
commercials.
Think of it this way... Chaos theorists are attempting to describe the
various motions and formulas that many natural phenomena follow. This,
in a way, is an attempt to find the Tao of the universe. The very pattern
of reality.
What do surrealists attempt to do, if not figure out what the Taoists
refer to as the Tao? A surrealist tries to strip away the fabric of
reality to get to its core, its real nature. And what might that core be,
using different terminology? The Tao.
> Yin and Yang: the interplay of negative (black, female, evil, earth) and
> positive (white, male, good, heaven).
> Surrealism cares little for the interplay of negative and positive but a
> synthesis of the two. Also, how could Surrealism accept the sexist and
> racist views (women and black as evil) contained in the yin and yang?
You're taking an ancient symbol and twisting it into something it is not.
Have you ever looked at a real ying-yang symbol? Each colour contains a
tiny speck of the other. Neither is pure. And you're falling prey to a
typical misunderstanding. White is not "good" and black is not "evil".
The two are merely opposites that balance one another. The friction is
necessary for us to be able to tell one thing from another and for there
to be movement.
A concept that is repeated throughout the Tao Teh Ching: the long is known
thanks to the short, the rich is known thanks to the poor. The only way
an object can be described is within its context. No one knows what good
is, unless we point at evil, for example. And there is no such thing as
one without the other.
> Wu-Wei: to follow the Tao, or the natural flow of nature.
> Surrealism is not interested in following. Let me remind you that automatism
> and objective chance in the Surrealist sense all call for the individuals
> "active participation," and do not promote sitting back and following any
> sort of natural flow. Automatism and objective chance are not humble or
> passive actions.
Wu-wei is following your own true nature. Instead of struggling and
screaming and bashing your head against a wall, sit down and listen to
what's inside your self. This will tell you what direction to follow
better than any philosophy, school of art, or religion. Wu-wei means to
follow YOUR Tao. This does not mean yielding to some great god power, nor
does it mean to listen to the Taoist leaders (no such thing). It means to
find out who you are, and be that person. How you fit into the network.
Wu-wei (unless I've lost my mind) translates to action through inaction.
In my opinion, this means to act from within, to act througyh inner
strength, that the centre of everything you do should be YOUR centre.
Which, I believe, is a VERY surrealist concept. Find the inside of your
own head, discover your own symbols, deconstruct your own soul, and then
BE the person that you really are.
I welcome all the comments of all the people of the net on this topic. Go
nuts.
Nik
--
Playboy is to porn, what wine coolers are to getting drunk. No one in
their right mind gets drunk on wine coolers.
Brandon J. Freels
what this is all about. Nik has, in alt.surrealism, tried to propose the
idea that Taoism and Surrealism are the same, and furthermore that Buddhism
and Surrealism are the same. Of course they are not since the "Four Noble
Truths" of Buddhism go against Surrealism and vice versa --- I am also
interested to hear how the Buddhists or Taoists feel about such scrambling
of their beliefs --- to make it something that its not]
Nikolaus Maack wrote
>Taoism is not a path one follows. All that exists follows Tao. Tao >is
the flow of the universe ...
Brandon:
Surrealists have no concern for the path. There is no surrealist who
believes in the existence of the flow of the universe. The idea of "chance"
goes against any "flow," for if there is a flow then their is a driving
force and if there is a driving force there is determinism, which leaves no
room for chance.
>A surrealist tries to strip away the fabric of reality to get to its core,
>its real nature. And what might that core be, using different
>terminology? The Tao.
Brandon:
Surrealism is not about "stripping" anything. How many Taoists out there
believe the Tao to be the unconscious? Not many. That's like saying a
Christian believes Christ to be the unconscious.
>You're taking an ancient symbol and twisting it into something it is not.
Brandon:
Actually, the symbol is not that old. Maybe 18th or 19th century, if I
remember correctly from my Asian History classes. Only the concept is
ancient.
>Wu-wei is following your own true nature. Instead of struggling and
>screaming and bashing your head against a wall, sit down and >listen to
what's inside your self.
Brandon:
Are you saying people who desire to bash their heads in are not "really"
desiring to bash their heads in?
>Wu-wei (unless I've lost my mind) translates to action through inaction.
Brandon:
Action through inaction is against Surrealism. Don't you know of Dali
kicking the blind guy down because he felt like it? Don't you know that
inaction is repression (unless it is desired). Why do you think the
Surrealists put "Gandhi" on their 'Do not Read' list?
>deconstruct your own soul, and then BE the person that you really are.
Brandon:
This is where you go wrong. Surrealism is not about deconstruction. If
anything it is about addition. We are taught from birth by society to
deconstruct, repress, etc., and surrealism says to unleash that which has
been deconstructed. Then you will BE the person that you really are.
Nikolaus Maack
> what this is all about. Nik has, in alt.surrealism, tried to propose the
> idea that Taoism and Surrealism are the same, and furthermore that Buddhism
> and Surrealism are the same.
*sigh* I never said any such thing. I said they had enough in common
that an examination of all three, comparing the similarities and
contrasts, would prove very useful. Something you seem to agree with. Or
presumably we wouldn't be having this conversation.
> Surrealists have no concern for the path. There is no surrealist who
> believes in the existence of the flow of the universe. The idea of "chance"
> goes against any "flow," for if there is a flow then their is a driving
> force and if there is a driving force there is determinism, which leaves no
> room for chance.
Gotta love those broad sweeping generalizations. There is no surrealist
who believes in the existence of the flow of the universe? Babe, you're
talking to one!
Besides which, things are always more complicated than philosophy 101, in
my books. You can have a determinist universe with free will. It's one
of the joys of my life. Everything that happens is meant to happen, part
of the enormous scheme of reality, and yet we get to pick and choose what
we do. It all just works out that way. Why? Who cares? It works.
Forget logic.
Most of the overly-thoughtful people I talk to are forced to admit, on a
logical level, that free will is a myth. After all, we are biological
machines, programmed by every experience we undergo. And yet in the here
and now, in the moment, non-logically, free will seems instinctively true.
So why not say we have both, and move on? Doesn't seem like a big issue
to me anyway. But obviously it is to you, Brandon, for some reason.
Explain why, if you can.
Chance is interesting, both to a surrealist and to a Taoist, because there
is meaning in the random. You can argue that our minds project meaning
into the random, thus giving it meaning, or... Or you could say that the
random is not in fact random. It follows a pattern. The Tao.
Of course, it seems to me that the Tao Teh Ching argues quite clearly that
the line between subjective and objective is an illusion. There's no line
at all. All there is simply IS. I don't know if I can express this any
more clearly at this time of night, so I'll move on.
> Surrealism is not about "stripping" anything. How many Taoists out there
> believe the Tao to be the unconscious? Not many. That's like saying a
> Christian believes Christ to be the unconscious.
The Tao is the unconscious but it is also the conscious. In the case of
Taoism, I think it makes sense to suggest that most of our understanding
of Tao is on an unconscious level. Our conscious minds insist on logic
and order and things that make sense. For this very reason, life often
appears completely illogical and chaotic, on a conscious level.
Unconsciously, life often makes complete sense. Ever had that odd
experience where something happens, something weird and unexpected, and
part of you says, "Of course. Right. This makes perfect sense. This was
meant to happen."? After all, the tao that can be described is not The
Tao. Which can be taken to mean, the tao that is experienced on a
conscious level, on a level that can be described in logical words and
sentences, isn't really anywhere near a real understanding of Tao. The
real grasp of life takes place in instinct, in subconscious.
Of course it is also said that the person who talks about the tao doesn't
know what the hell they are talking about. (So what do I know? *grin*)
Just like that wonderful Buddhist koan. "If you meet the Buddha on the
road, kill him." Why? One possible answer is because if you meet the
Buddha on the road, he isn't the real Buddha.
[The yin-yang]
> Actually, the symbol is not that old. Maybe 18th or 19th century, if I
> remember correctly from my Asian History classes. Only the concept is
> ancient.
Which doesn't address the issue that your particular view of the symbol is
utterly off base, but never mind.
[Wu-Wei]
> Are you saying people who desire to bash their heads in are not "really"
> desiring to bash their heads in?
Well, it depends on what level you want to talk on. Some might argue that
any poor slob who wants to bang their head against a wall does so because
it is their karma to do so. It's their destiny to bang their head, and so
they do. It would be foolish to suggest they do anything else. (Unless
it's your karma to go around trying to stop people from bashing their
heads in.)
On the other hand, on another level, anyone who runs about frantically
trying to figure themselves out by looking at the world, never looking
within, constantly crashing into things, could use a different approach,
one that is much more productive. It's presumptuous to offer them one,
but it might be nice to at least let them know there are other options.
Remember, when I said that some people run around, bashing their heads
against walls, I was using it to describe those people that are always
looking for meaning in the things outside of themselves. It's very
difficult to keep looking inward, ignoring all the forces outside.
Someone or something always struggles to drag us away from introspection
and meditation. Be it a 9-to-5 job or a television commercial, a lover,
or a physical desire... Something is always trying to drag us back into
the world.
And when I say the world, I mean that non-thinking hell-hole full of
sitcoms and rock videos and meaningless work and consumerism.
> Action through inaction is against Surrealism.
You're getting caught in the words of what I'm saying, and not the meaning
of it. Wu-wei does not mean sitting on your ass in a field of daisies and
basking in all knowing power. There is ACTION in wu-wei. You do things.
What you do NOT do is think about what you are doing. In a way, wu-wei is
the ultimate in behaving automatically.
> Don't you know of Dali
> kicking the blind guy down because he felt like it? Don't you know that
> inaction is repression (unless it is desired). Why do you think the
> Surrealists put "Gandhi" on their 'Do not Read' list?
What Dali did completely follows wu-wei. What a person not following
wu-wei would do would be to see the blind man, feel the impulse, and then
begin to worry. They would question the desire, the morality, the whole
insanity of the act. What Dali did was have a desire, and act on it
without thinking, without looking to the outside world for confirmation.
(Action without action. Get it?) He didn't turn to Bill, standing next to
him, and say, "I have the desire to kick that blind man. Should I act on
the desire?"
Don't let the word INACTION drive you mad. Wu-wei means to ACT without
acting. This means to do what comes naturally to you, without worrying
about it making sense. My understanding of wu-wei (which might differ
from the understanding other people have) is completely in synch with
surrealist ideas.
By the way, the idea of surrealists having a "do not read" list of books
is very depressing. I know you meant this as only a metaphor, meaning
that Ghandi is not a surrealist, but the idea that certain writers and
thinkers are tabboo seems very... foolish. Everything is potentially
useful. So Ghandi chose non-violence as a method of protest. He still
protested. He still DID something. You may argue against his philosophy,
but you have to admit it did achieve something. It still got him noticed.
> This is where you go wrong. Surrealism is not about deconstruction. If
> anything it is about addition. We are taught from birth by society to
> deconstruct, repress, etc., and surrealism says to unleash that which has
> been deconstructed. Then you will BE the person that you really are.
Interesting. My understanding of surrealists is that they are all
absolutely in love with Freud. It would then seem to me that surrealists
should want to look at their own impulses, their own Freudian desires, and
express them. Hence Dali's paintings, many of which deal with Oedipal
desire and castration anxiety. It seems to me that Freud, and other
philosophers who talk about our darker impulses, give us useful sign posts
as to where we might like to dig inside our own heads.
But what you seem to be saying is that surrealists want to express all
desires, unleash the contents of the mind without being overly critical of
the results. I don't see how deconstructing necessarily means repression,
though. The only difference, as I see it, between what you're saying and
what I'm saying, is that I believe that after you spew all your thoughts
on to the page, you might want to back and re-read what you've got,
looking for what might be of meaning to you, the artist. This can only
help you figure yourself out.
Am I right when I say that you see no reason in looking back, and trying
to figure yourself out?
In this sense, you're almost more Buddhist than I am. My understanding of
Buddhism goes something like this:
1. You walk your dog. You do this without thinking, without noticing how
you do it. The entire act practically has nothing to do with your
conscious mind.
2. Then you begin to study Buddhism, and you want to become aware of all
your actions. You carefully remain aware as you walk your dog, noting all
the details, all the emotions, all the experiences.
3. In the end, you once again walk your dog without thinking about it.
You've grown to understand the experience to the point that, while
entirely in the moment, it is now so instinctual that you don't have to
THINK about thinking about walking the dog.
Perhaps surrealism aims for the same goals.
1. People express themselves without giving it too much thought, not even
aware that they are repressing their own minds.
2. People then start to question the way they think and express
themselves. They start examining their own thought processes, working on
them.
3. In the end, the people are now able to express all their thoughts, all
their feelings, once again without giving it all that much thought, but
this time without censoring any of their ideas.
Is this a useful comparison? Let me know.
Nik
--
"Many people (mostly young children) are killed each year by dogs. Also,
if you keep up with the news, it is not uncommon for criminals to have
dogs." --Paul Francis explains why dogs are evil
Brandon J. Freels
>I said they had enough in common that an examination of all three...
Brandon:
I say anything can have something in common if you step back further enough.
You are viewing all three of these theories from another Galaxy and that's
why you see them as having simularities. Why don't you read Nadeau's History
of Surrealism, or Breton's Manifestos.
>Gotta love those broad sweeping generalizations. There is no >surrealist
who believes in the existence of the flow of the universe? >Babe, you're
talking to one!
Brandon:
You are not a Surrealist. What do you know of Surrealism? Also, Surrealism
is not concerned with Karma. Karma, which deals with reincarnation, is
exterior. Who cares? The Surrealist does not!
>What you do NOT do is think about what you are doing. In a way, >wu-wei is
the ultimate in behaving automatically.
Brandon:
No, wu-wei is to let things come to you. Surrealism goes to things. Wu-Wei
is another way to repress desires. "I'm just going to go about my business
and let things come to me." Where as the Surrealist is a discoverer, a
hunter, looking for that Marvelous experience. He cares not for "waiting"
for things. He wants to find them.
>Don't let the word INACTION drive you mad. Wu-wei means to >ACT without
acting.
Brandon:
I think this is what "YOU" want wu-wei to mean. Afterall, we here at
alt.surrealism know of your loose definitions of words.
>Interesting. My understanding of surrealists is that they are all
>absolutely in love with Freud. It would then seem to me that >surrealists
should want to look at their own impulses, their own >Freudian desires, and
express them.
Brandon:
Frued was just one of the ancestors to Surrealism. Many of them laughed at
him (Magritte). Surrealism is not theropy. Surrealist DO NOT go by any book
of Frued's and say "Today I'm going to paint a picture of my castration
complex." That would get them nowhere. Also, Frued didn't even understand
Surrealism, and by the late 1920's was almost forgotten by much of
Surrealism.
>But what you seem to be saying is that surrealists want to express >all
desires, unleash the contents of the mind without being overly >critical of
the results.
Brandon:
Yes. Name a Surrealist artist who analyzed his work, and said "This is what
this is about, and this is what this is about." Dali doesn't count for he
was not a Surrealist after 1933.
>I don't see how deconstructing necessarily means repression,
>though. The only difference, as I see it, between what you're >saying and
what I'm saying, is that I believe that after you spew all >your thoughts on
to the page, you might want to back and re-read >what you've got, looking
for what might be of meaning to you, the >artist. This can only help you
figure yourself out.
Brandon:
Really? How so? How can this help you figure yourself out? Magritte didn't
even believe in psychology. Was he trying figure himself out?
>Am I right when I say that you see no reason in looking back, and >trying
to figure yourself out?
Brandon:
Only in psychoanalytical means. But if we use art for psychoanalysis it is
no longer Surrealist art but psychoanalytic art. Surrealism is not
psychoanalysis. For the patient (the insane) who draws just to draw then
maybe we can see it as Surrealism, but for the analysist it is not
Surrealism. The analysist is playing the part of the art critic. Booh!!!
>Is this a useful comparison? Let me know.
Brandon:
No, this is not a useful comparison.
Buddhism:
1. life is suffering
2. suffering is caused by desire
3. cease the desire
4. follow the eight-fold path
Am I wrong, Buddhists?
Sphere
...
>
> Brandon:
> No, this is not a useful comparison.
Daoism and the Dharma are different
religions which don't have much in
common.
> Buddhism:
> 1. life is suffering
> 2. suffering is caused by desire
> 3. cease the desire
> 4. follow the eight-fold path
>
> Am I wrong, Buddhists?
All you've done is type some words.
'Suffering' isn't even a very good
translation. Many prefer 'stress'.
'Desire' misses the point. The
translation usually used is
'attachment'. In fact, desire
arises with attachment to things.
Buddhism does not accept
substantialist causality, but
it is not acausualist either --
as I've seen mention that
Surrealism does elsewhere in
this thread. The notion of
a living path is pure Taoism,
and has nothing to do with
the Dhamma. Siddhartha
taught of the middle way between
substantialism and nihilism.
BTW -- You've chosen to cross-post
to followers of the Fat Guy, El
Dupree -- watch out for vinal
head sacks. You probably need
one.
Sphere.
--
ABSFG: transmitting the Dharma through chocolate. -- Trin
Ali Hassan
Brandon J. Freels wrote in message ...
>Nikolaus Maack wrote
>>I said they had enough in common that an examination of all three...
>
>Brandon:
>I say anything can have something in common if you step back further
enough.
>You are viewing all three of these theories from another Galaxy and that's
>why you see them as having simularities. Why don't you read Nadeau's
History
>of Surrealism, or Breton's Manifestos.
>
>who believes in the existence of the flow of the universe? >Babe, you're
>talking to one!
>
>
>You are not a Surrealist. What do you know of Surrealism? Also, Surrealism
>is not concerned with Karma. Karma, which deals with reincarnation, is
>exterior. Who cares? The Surrealist does not!
>
is
>the ultimate in behaving automatically.
>
>
>No, wu-wei is to let things come to you. Surrealism goes to things. Wu-Wei
>is another way to repress desires. "I'm just going to go about my business
>and let things come to me." Where as the Surrealist is a discoverer, a
>hunter, looking for that Marvelous experience. He cares not for "waiting"
>for things. He wants to find them.
>
>acting.
>
>I think this is what "YOU" want wu-wei to mean. Afterall, we here at
>alt.surrealism know of your loose definitions of words.
>
>>absolutely in love with Freud. It would then seem to me that >surrealists
>should want to look at their own impulses, their own >Freudian desires, and
>express them.
>
>Frued was just one of the ancestors to Surrealism. Many of them laughed at
>him (Magritte). Surrealism is not theropy. Surrealist DO NOT go by any book
>of Frued's and say "Today I'm going to paint a picture of my castration
>complex." That would get them nowhere. Also, Frued didn't even understand
>Surrealism, and by the late 1920's was almost forgotten by much of
>Surrealism.
>
>desires, unleash the contents of the mind without being overly >critical of
>the results.
>
>Yes. Name a Surrealist artist who analyzed his work, and said "This is what
>this is about, and this is what this is about." Dali doesn't count for he
>was not a Surrealist after 1933.
>
>>though. The only difference, as I see it, between what you're >saying and
>what I'm saying, is that I believe that after you spew all >your thoughts
on
>to the page, you might want to back and re-read >what you've got, looking
>for what might be of meaning to you, the >artist. This can only help you
>figure yourself out.
>
>
>Really? How so? How can this help you figure yourself out? Magritte didn't
>even believe in psychology. Was he trying figure himself out?
>
>
>to figure yourself out?
>
>Only in psychoanalytical means. But if we use art for psychoanalysis it is
>no longer Surrealist art but psychoanalytic art. Surrealism is not
>psychoanalysis. For the patient (the insane) who draws just to draw then
>maybe we can see it as Surrealism, but for the analysist it is not
>Surrealism. The analysist is playing the part of the art critic. Booh!!!
>
>
>
>No, this is not a useful comparison.
>
>1. life is suffering
>2. suffering is caused by desire
>3. cease the desire
>4. follow the eight-fold path
>
>Am I wrong, Buddhists?
>
luc...@usa.net
Sphere <Spher...@my-dejanews.com> wrote:
> "Brandon J. Freels" wrote:
.
>
> > Buddhism:
> > 1. life is suffering
> > 2. suffering is caused by desire
> > 3. cease the desire
> > 4. follow the eight-fold path
> >
> > Am I wrong, Buddhists?
>
>
> 'Suffering' isn't even a very good
> translation. Many prefer 'stress'.
Or "sensation of unsatisfactoriness"
-----------== Posted via Deja News, The Discussion Network ==----------
http://www.dejanews.com/ Search, Read, Discuss, or Start Your Own
dr...@ecity.net
Ali Hassan wrote in message ...
>
>Brandon J. Freels wrote in message ...
>>Nikolaus Maack wrote
>>>I said they had enough in common that an examination of all three...
>>
>>Brandon:
>>I say anything can have something in common if you step back further
>enough.
>>You are viewing all three of these theories from another Galaxy and that's
>>why you see them as having simularities. Why don't you read Nadeau's
>History
>>of Surrealism, or Breton's Manifestos.
>>
>>who believes in the existence of the flow of the universe? >Babe, you're
>>talking to one!
>>
>>
>>You are not a Surrealist. What do you know of Surrealism? Also, Surrealism
>>is not concerned with Karma. Karma, which deals with reincarnation, is
>>exterior. Who cares? The Surrealist does not!
>>
>is
>>the ultimate in behaving automatically.
>>
>>
>>No, wu-wei is to let things come to you. Surrealism goes to things. Wu-Wei
>>is another way to repress desires. "I'm just going to go about my business
>>and let things come to me." Where as the Surrealist is a discoverer, a
>>hunter, looking for that Marvelous experience. He cares not for "waiting"
>>for things. He wants to find them.
>>
>>acting.
>>
>>I think this is what "YOU" want wu-wei to mean. Afterall, we here at
>>alt.surrealism know of your loose definitions of words.
>>
>>>absolutely in love with Freud. It would then seem to me that
>surrealists
>>should want to look at their own impulses, their own >Freudian desires,
and
>>express them.
>>
>>Frued was just one of the ancestors to Surrealism. Many of them laughed at
>>him (Magritte). Surrealism is not theropy. Surrealist DO NOT go by any
book
>>of Frued's and say "Today I'm going to paint a picture of my castration
>>complex." That would get them nowhere. Also, Frued didn't even understand
>>Surrealism, and by the late 1920's was almost forgotten by much of
>>Surrealism.
>>
>>desires, unleash the contents of the mind without being overly >critical
of
>>the results.
>>
>>Yes. Name a Surrealist artist who analyzed his work, and said "This is
what
>>this is about, and this is what this is about." Dali doesn't count for he
>>was not a Surrealist after 1933.
>>
>>>though. The only difference, as I see it, between what you're >saying
and
>>what I'm saying, is that I believe that after you spew all >your thoughts
>on
>>to the page, you might want to back and re-read >what you've got, looking
>>for what might be of meaning to you, the >artist. This can only help you
>>figure yourself out.
>>
>>
>>Really? How so? How can this help you figure yourself out? Magritte didn't
>>even believe in psychology. Was he trying figure himself out?
>>
>>
>>to figure yourself out?
>>
>>Only in psychoanalytical means. But if we use art for psychoanalysis it is
>>no longer Surrealist art but psychoanalytic art. Surrealism is not
>>psychoanalysis. For the patient (the insane) who draws just to draw then
>>maybe we can see it as Surrealism, but for the analysist it is not
>>Surrealism. The analysist is playing the part of the art critic. Booh!!!
>>
>>
>>
>>No, this is not a useful comparison.
>>
>>1. life is suffering
>>2. suffering is caused by desire
>>3. cease the desire
>>4. follow the eight-fold path
>>
>>Am I wrong, Buddhists?
>>
Well, I'm confused by the fact of Surrealism being called a religion.
I thought it was a form of art.
Religion is also an art, but so is life an art.
Can you define Surrealism as religion?
(or is that the argument?)
I just figured Surrealism to be a label that an art critic would use. The
artist wouldn't
give a fucking fly. She paints. What other people call it doesn't matter.
droll
>
Sphere
>
> In article <36878157...@my-dejanews.com>,
> Sphere <Spher...@my-dejanews.com> wrote:
> > "Brandon J. Freels" wrote:
> .
> >
> > > 1. life is suffering
> > > 2. suffering is caused by desire
> > > 3. cease the desire
> > > 4. follow the eight-fold path
> > >
> > > Am I wrong, Buddhists?
> >
> >
> > 'Suffering' isn't even a very good
> > translation. Many prefer 'stress'.
>
> Or "sensation of unsatisfactoriness"
Hmm. Never heard 'sensation' before
myself, but I like it.
'Unsatisfactoriness' always seems to
be in competition with
antidisestablishmentarianism to me.
(Just plain too long.)
tri...@hotmail.com
"Brandon J. Freels" <Fre...@ethergate.com> wrote:
> Nikolaus Maack wrote
> Brandon:
> No, this is not a useful comparison.
>
> 1. life is suffering
> 2. suffering is caused by desire
> 3. cease the desire
> 4. follow the eight-fold path
>
> Am I wrong, Buddhists?
well Not quite right
1) All phenomenon in Samsara (this world where suffering exists)
contains some element of unsatisfactoriness.
<In all things in this world there is some element of shit happening>
I think you may be aiming at the 4 truth, but that's not the list you came up
with...
tri...@hotmail.com
>
> Well, I'm confused by the fact of Surrealism being called a religion.
> I thought it was a form of art.
It's a form of perception. ;)
and IMHO real life is pretty Surreal. (just watch CNN for an hour! zeesh!
now THAT would do Dali proud.)
>
> I just figured Surrealism to be a label that an art critic would use. The
Or art historian...
> artist wouldn't
> give a fucking fly. She paints. What other people call it doesn't matter.
>
psst Droll, a percentage of Art (even the non-performing arts like painting
etc) is Talking about the Art.... ut oh, now I gave out a secret and the
Secret Brotherhood of Artists is going to come after me! OOhhhhh =)
TK
tri...@hotmail.com
Sphere <Spher...@my-dejanews.com> wrote:
> luc...@usa.net wrote:
> >
> > In article <36878157...@my-dejanews.com>,
> > Sphere <Spher...@my-dejanews.com> wrote:
> > > "Brandon J. Freels" wrote:
> > .
> > >
> > > > 1. life is suffering
> > > > 2. suffering is caused by desire
> > > > 3. cease the desire
> > > > 4. follow the eight-fold path
> > > >
> > > > Am I wrong, Buddhists?
> > >
> > >
> > > 'Suffering' isn't even a very good
> > > translation. Many prefer 'stress'.
> >
> > Or "sensation of unsatisfactoriness"
>
> Hmm. Never heard 'sensation' before
> myself, but I like it.
1) All phenomenon in Samsara contains some element of shit happening.
2) Whether it's good shit or bad shit it all passes
(All phenomenon in Samsara is impermanet)
3) All phenomenon in Samsara is empty of Self
(I'm having trouble with tavernizing this one)
4) Nirvana is no shit.
(Nirvana = Peace)
Howzat?
>
> 'Unsatisfactoriness' always seems to
> be in competition with
> antidisestablishmentarianism to me.
> (Just plain too long.)
"Shit Happens"
Pete Watters
> psst Droll, a percentage of Art (even the non-performing arts like painting
> etc) is Talking about the Art.... ut oh, now I gave out a secret and the
> Secret Brotherhood of Artists is going to come after me! OOhhhhh =)
And all poetry is about poetry.
Pete (and all life is about love)
dr...@ecity.net
Pete Watters wrote in message ...
I like that: All life is about love.
Too bad a lot of people don't believe it.
droll
dr...@ecity.net
tri...@hotmail.com wrote in message <769j7l$oqb$1...@nnrp1.dejanews.com>...
>In article <3687d...@news3.paonline.com>,
> <dr...@ecity.net> wrote:
>>
>> Ali Hassan wrote in message ...
>> >
>> >Brandon J. Freels wrote in
>> >No buddhists, no response,no nothing.....except you're boring
>>
>second that, and I'm an artist... and kinda like surealism on occasion.
>
>> Well, I'm confused by the fact of Surrealism being called a religion.
>> I thought it was a form of art.
>
>It's a form of perception. ;)
>and IMHO real life is pretty Surreal. (just watch CNN for an hour! zeesh!
>now THAT would do Dali proud.)
>
>
>>
>> I just figured Surrealism to be a label that an art critic would use.
The
>
>Or art historian...
>
>> artist wouldn't
>> give a fucking fly. She paints. What other people call it doesn't
matter.
>>
>
>etc) is Talking about the Art.... ut oh, now I gave out a secret and the
>Secret Brotherhood of Artists is going to come after me! OOhhhhh =)
But is it a religion?
Like the worship of Vincent Van Gogh?
(or Monet?)
How did we get involved?
>
>
>TK
Sphere
It's all your shit, not my shit. <TeeHee>
> 4) Nirvana is no shit.
> (Nirvana = Peace)
>
> Howzat?
>
> >
> > 'Unsatisfactoriness' always seems to
> > be in competition with
> > antidisestablishmentarianism to me.
> > (Just plain too long.)
>
> "Shit Happens"
>
Fredrock
>
> In article <3687FD25...@my-dejanews.com>,
> Sphere <Spher...@my-dejanews.com> wrote:
> > luc...@usa.net wrote:
> > >
> > > In article <36878157...@my-dejanews.com>,
> > > Sphere <Spher...@my-dejanews.com> wrote:
> > > > "Brandon J. Freels" wrote:
> > > .
> > > >
> > > > > Buddhism:
> > > > > 1. life is suffering
> > > > > 2. suffering is caused by desire
> > > > > 3. cease the desire
> > > > > 4. follow the eight-fold path
> > > > >
> > > > > Am I wrong, Buddhists?
You are wrong and not-wrong, both wrong and not-wrong, neither wrong nor
not-wrong. Paint that!
> > > > All you've done is type some words.
> > > >
> > > > 'Suffering' isn't even a very good
> > > > translation. Many prefer 'stress'.
> > >
> > > Or "sensation of unsatisfactoriness"
> >
> > Hmm. Never heard 'sensation' before
> > myself, but I like it.
How could you hear *anything* before your self?
> 1) All phenomenon in Samsara contains some element of shit happening.
> 2) Whether it's good shit or bad shit it all passes
> (All phenomenon in Samsara is impermanet)
> 3) All phenomenon in Samsara is empty of Self
> (I'm having trouble with tavernizing this one)
> 4) Nirvana is no shit.
> (Nirvana = Peace)
>
> Howzat?
"Tavernizing"?! Tavernize?! Trin, you're wonderful.
> > 'Unsatisfactoriness' always seems to
> > be in competition with
> > antidisestablishmentarianism to me.
> > (Just plain too long.)
>
> "Shit Happens"
Fred
Brandon J. Freels
guy, Nik, that did it...]
dr...@ecity.net wrote
> Well, I'm confused by the fact of Surrealism being called a religion.
>I thought it was a form of art.
Brandon responds, just so you know, with his working definition of
Surrealism:
Surrealism is the demand to further reality, to push reality past the reign
of logic, in hopes of reaching the purist of thoughts. Surrealism is freedom
from society's artificial obligations, emancipating the mind and its ability
to unify contradictions. Surrealism is giving in to the imagination, and
accepting perception as existing in both closed and opened eyes. Surrealism
is accepting your fantasies and desires, your impulsive and irrational
actions, and all the things that would have you labeled mad. Surrealism is
the movement of the mind towards a clearer understanding of life. Surrealism
is "the pruning of life" (Boiffard, Eluard, Vitrac).
Surrealism is a revolution.
Fredrock
>
> [since we are here at alt.Buddha then maybe the Buddhists should understand
> what this is all about. Nik has, in alt.surrealism, tried to propose the
> idea that Taoism and Surrealism are the same, and furthermore that Buddhism
> Truths" of Buddhism go against Surrealism and vice versa --- I am also
> interested to hear how the Buddhists or Taoists feel about such scrambling
> of their beliefs --- to make it something that its not]
>
> Nikolaus Maack wrote
> >Taoism is not a path one follows. All that exists follows Tao. Tao >is
> the flow of the universe ...
>
> Brandon:
But when you jump into the forest in search of the marvelou, you have
defned your path. In a boundless garden of infinitely forked paths, you
have chosen yours.
> There is no surrealist who
> believes in the existence of the flow of the universe. The idea of "chance"
> goes against any "flow," for if there is a flow then their is a driving
> force and if there is a driving force there is determinism, which leaves no
> room for chance.
The idea of chaos unites the two, and undermines any notion of
determinism.
> >A surrealist tries to strip away the fabric of reality to get to its core,
> >its real nature. And what might that core be, using different
> >terminology? The Tao.
>
> Brandon:
> Surrealism is not about "stripping" anything. How many Taoists out there
> believe the Tao to be the unconscious? Not many. That's like saying a
> Christian believes Christ to be the unconscious.
>
>
> >Wu-wei is following your own true nature.
>
> Brandon:
> Action through inaction is against Surrealism. Don't you know of Dali
> kicking the blind guy down because he felt like it? Don't you know that
> inaction is repression (unless it is desired). Why do you think the
> Surrealists put "Gandhi" on their 'Do not Read' list?
>
> >deconstruct your own soul, and then BE the person that you really are.
>
> Brandon:
> This is where you go wrong. Surrealism is not about deconstruction. If
> anything it is about addition. We are taught from birth by society to
> deconstruct, repress, etc., and surrealism says to unleash that which has
> been deconstructed. Then you will BE the person that you really are.
I thought surrealism wasn't "about" anything. I thought it *used*
jusxtaposition of ideas, images, symbols, and oft-overlooked everyday
objects to shock, provoke, induce laughter (Magritee does for me, at
least, Duchamp, too).
Does anyone here believe that Magritte or Dali or Kahlo or... was
thinking about the Surrealist Manifesto as he or she painted? Didn't
the manifesto follow the movement? Isn't it a bit of surrealism
itself?
To my knowledge (limited, at very best, but I love to spew), only
Duchamp ever "quoted" any surrealist works in his own (was it one of the
ready- mades?) Oddly enough, the sculpture I'm thinking of included a
page of a text by Henri Poincare--mathematician and philosopher (not
surrealist), and one of the earlist founders of chaos theory. Go figure
(or not).
Fred (who was it who said "The cheese that can be tasted is not the true
cheese"?)
barrett john erickson
Fredrock wrote:
> [...]
> I thought surrealism wasn't "about" anything. I thought it *used*
> jusxtaposition of ideas, images, symbols, and oft-overlooked everyday
> objects to shock, provoke, induce laughter (Magritee does for me, at
> least, Duchamp, too).
the surrealist project is to enhance reality by integrating the liberated imagination
into every day living.
> Does anyone here believe that Magritte or Dali or Kahlo or... was
> thinking about the Surrealist Manifesto as he or she painted? Didn't
> the manifesto follow the movement? Isn't it a bit of surrealism
> itself?
"surrealism" began as a literary exploration (in search of the source of creativity)
with the writing of Les Champs Magnetiques in 1919. the first manifesto was written
in 1924 and the movement was almost entirely made up of poets at that time. the
painters were drawn to "surrealism" because of its project, as first laid out in this
manifesto, and the examples of its experiments presented its various publications.
"surrealism" is not a style or school of art.
art is not necessary for "surrealism" -- all surrealists are not artists (in the
conventional sense). any art created by surrealists is only that: art created by a
surrealist. surrealist artists do not create surrealist works, but leave artifacts
of surrealist exploration.
-- barrett
bar...@MagneticFields.org
http://www.MagneticFields.org/
"Everything tends to make us believe that there exists a certain point of the mind at
which life and death, the real and the imagined, past and future, the communicable
and the incommunicable, high and low, cease to be perceived as contradictions."
...André Breton
Sphere
...
>
> "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
This's nice, but skip the clarification.
luc...@usa.net
> painting
> >> etc) is Talking about the Art.... ut oh, now I gave out a secret and the
> >> Secret Brotherhood of Artists is going to come after me! OOhhhhh =)
> >
> >
> >Pete (and all life is about love)
>
> I like that: All life is about love.
> Too bad a lot of people don't believe it.
>
Even worse.
Most who believe, don't understand.
dr...@ecity.net
tri...@hotmail.com wrote:
> In article <3687d...@news3.paonline.com>,
> <dr...@ecity.net> wrote:
> >
> > Ali Hassan wrote in message ...
> > >
> > >Brandon J. Freels wrote in
> > >No buddhists, no response,no nothing.....except you're boring
> >
> second that, and I'm an artist... and kinda like surealism on occasion.
>
> > I thought it was a form of art.
>
> and IMHO real life is pretty Surreal. (just watch CNN for an hour! zeesh!
> now THAT would do Dali proud.)
>
> >
> > I just figured Surrealism to be a label that an art critic would use. The
>
> Or art historian...
>
> > artist wouldn't
> > give a fucking fly. She paints. What other people call it doesn't matter.
> >
>
> etc) is Talking about the Art.... ut oh, now I gave out a secret and the
> Secret Brotherhood of Artists is going to come after me! OOhhhhh =)
>
>
Oh, I suppose. But usually I never get past, "Wow!" or thanking someone's
appreciation of my scribbles.
And I'm still confused as to how surrealism can be a religion.
droll
barrett john erickson
Sphere wrote:
> This's nice, but skip the clarification.
i could say the same about all the posts from alt.buddha.short.fat.guy about taoism
and buddhism.
i realize you didn't ask for your presence in alt.surrealism (we all have nik to
thank for that -- a lesson learned from "Andrea" no doubt), but you can't really
expect (those who know better in) alt.surrealism to ignore posts which misrepresent
"surrealism" (inadvertently or not) any more than i would expect you to ignore posts
which misrepresent your area of focus.
personally, i find two such posts to be my limit.
-- barrett
bar...@MagneticFields.org
http://www.MagneticFields.org/
"Everything tends to make us believe that there exists a certain point of the mind at
dr...@ecity.net
> guy, Nik, that did it...]
>
> dr...@ecity.net wrote
> >I thought it was a form of art.
>
> Surrealism:
> Surrealism is the demand to further reality, to push reality past the reign
> of logic, in hopes of reaching the purist of thoughts. Surrealism is freedom
> from society's artificial obligations, emancipating the mind and its ability
> to unify contradictions. Surrealism is giving in to the imagination, and
> accepting perception as existing in both closed and opened eyes. Surrealism
> is accepting your fantasies and desires, your impulsive and irrational
> actions, and all the things that would have you labeled mad. Surrealism is
> the movement of the mind towards a clearer understanding of life. Surrealism
> is "the pruning of life" (Boiffard, Eluard, Vitrac).
>
> Surrealism is a revolution.
Well, that's interesting. It isn't exactly Buddhism or Taoism, though.
I imagine that, as with all words, you have a bit of difficulty pinning down
the definition, though.
;-)
Sphere
>
> Sphere wrote:
>
> > This's nice, but skip the clarification.
>
> i could say the same about all the posts from alt.buddha.short.fat.guy about taoism
> and buddhism.
>
> i realize you didn't ask for your presence in alt.surrealism (we all have nik to
> thank for that -- a lesson learned from "Andrea" no doubt), but you can't really
> expect (those who know better in) alt.surrealism to ignore posts which misrepresent
> "surrealism" (inadvertently or not) any more than i would expect you to ignore posts
> which misrepresent your area of focus.
>
> personally, i find two such posts to be my limit.
Yea...
> -- barrett
>
> bar...@MagneticFields.org
> http://www.MagneticFields.org/
>
> "Everything tends to make us believe that there exists a certain point of the mind at
> which life and death, the real and the imagined, past and future, the communicable
> and the incommunicable, high and low, cease to be perceived as contradictions."
>
> ...André Breton
But that Breton quote is still nice.
Sphere.
[Standing on the lip
Of the canyon of openness
I lept down her throat.]
Fredrock
barrett john erickson wrote:
>
> Fredrock wrote:
>
> > [...]
>
> > I thought surrealism wasn't "about" anything. I thought it *used*
> > jusxtaposition of ideas, images, symbols, and oft-overlooked everyday
> > objects to shock, provoke, induce laughter (Magritee does for me, at
> > least, Duchamp, too).
>
> the surrealist project is to enhance reality by integrating the liberated imagination
> into every day living.
>
> > Does anyone here believe that Magritte or Dali or Kahlo or... was
> > thinking about the Surrealist Manifesto as he or she painted? Didn't
> > the manifesto follow the movement? Isn't it a bit of surrealism
> > itself?
>
> "surrealism" began as a literary exploration (in search of the source of creativity)
> with the writing of Les Champs Magnetiques in 1919. the first manifesto was written
> in 1924 and the movement was almost entirely made up of poets at that time. the
> painters were drawn to "surrealism" because of its project, as first laid out in this
> manifesto, and the examples of its experiments presented its various publications.
>
> "surrealism" is not a style or school of art.
>
> art is not necessary for "surrealism" -- all surrealists are not artists (in the
> conventional sense). any art created by surrealists is only that: art created by a
> surrealist. surrealist artists do not create surrealist works, but leave artifacts
> of surrealist exploration.
>
Perceptor
> cheese"?)
I would like to know what tigers cheese on a salt cracker would taste like. or
even dogs cheese.
I'll have some of the Chiwawa on a a corn tortilla please.
ver...@ihug.co.nz
wrote:
>> (who was it who said "The cheese that can be tasted is not the true
>> cheese"?)
Ralph the Rat
(Mickey Mouse's evil twin)
Perceptor
> On Thu, 31 Dec 1998 15:38:19 GMT, Perceptor <cwhe...@optonline.net>
> Did not and probaly will never write , but included as a quote in his
> reply to the person who included the quote in thier original post the
> following quote:
>
> >> (who was it who said "The cheese that can be tasted is not the true
> >> cheese"?)
>
> Ralph the Rat
> (Mickey Mouse's evil twin)
Dear Ralphie,
I have inserted the correct information to the text which you have
attributed to the Perceptor.
Thank you for your shared interest in mamallary
by products.
Licky Louse
(I give new meaning to the term "youth in Asia" )
Brian Drummond
>Fred (who was it who said "The cheese that can be tasted is not the true
>cheese"?)
something rapidly evolving within my fridge.
(There's stil tons of it left)
- Brian