repost: "for xister: why surrealism is not a soft drink but dada is"
Andrea Chen
>
> Andrea Chen:
>
> All you say may be true and false. But the point here is that Nik
> is making such a fuss over our statements claiming his statements
> are incorrect. Why?
I wasn't talking to Nik. Claims such as all things are equally true
bore me and I have found it useless to try and engage in serious
dialogue with their proclaimers who are likely to move onto something
else rather quickly. I was playing rather hurriedly with the realities
of logic and I was dealing with Brandon.
However your "why?" does point I tried to indicate. Nik isn't
particulary interested in your or Brandon's idea of truth. He can play
all day with his statements and even find some justification (certainly
SOME of what he, you and everyone else says is true and from an
individual angle we all tend to regard our views as true, there are so
many angles of argument), but in fact if he does as you claim (falls
back to insult) he isn't going to bother. You are dealing with a social
mechanism here, Nik has you hooked (with irritation), now he keeps your
attention by bating you. You will (if you don't relax and detach)
continue a dialogue which you can't win (from Nik's viewpoint which is
the one which is bothering you) and which seems to become increasingly
frustrating. This a "truth" (or more accurately a likely truth since I
haven't studied the situation enough to see if it fits this common
pattern.)
>He specifically states that all "statements"
> are equally true, so why is he so upset by our statements that he
> has now de-volved into name-calling as a defense?
See above.
> If Nik really
> believed this (to me) palpable nonsense, then he would sit quietly
> in his room with the world buzzing about his head like a blow fly.
> It's his false faith I find appalling: it is obvious that he is making a
> big stink over a system he himself doesn't believe. His actions
> speak volumes... well... pamphlets.
>
And they are a common social mechanism. Surrealism was at least
theoretically concerned with uncovering unconscious drives and by
implications the social mechanisms they engendered. In this case you
are mixing logical types, you are arguing on one level and Nik on
another.
> This belief in the total equivalence of every statement may be "true"
> (and let's not get into the definition of Truth), but (for a human who has
> to put on his clothes and got to work every day) it is worse than useless,
> and (if it comes up against organized evil) even dangerous.
I will tend to agree with you here. But my point was the complexity
and limits of logics when faced with the real world. It was an attempt
to suggest that "truth" (while I think it exists approximately) involves
a multitude of approaches. William James is the philosopher who comes
to mind when I think of this attitude, Kuhn and Popper on science also
have important ideas.
> It is precisely
> the sort of anchorless "I'm okay Jake" mummery that creates the Good
> German complex, and is (philosophically) untenable.
I think the "good German" attitude has a somewhat different basis. It
wasn't (IMO) relativistic, but based on respect for authority. Here you
are (I think) muddling 2 very different tendencies. (1) Respect for
authority (and fear) don't challenge evil. (2) Moral relativism doesn't
challenge evil.
The results are the same but the causes are different. This kind of
complexity is what I meant to suggest to Brandon. Not that I believe he
is incapable of dealing with it, I suspect he does all the time, I
simply felt from the (1) post in question he was giving too much
authority too certain tools which can be rigid, misrepresent many
complex layered social realities and be as damaging to truth as a pure
relativism. Think how many (often sincerely believed) lies are
justified by an absolute either/or.
>It almost is a definition
> of navel-gazing self-involvement. A recipe for lay-downism.
>
Yes. Except not almost.
> But Nik refuses to lay down.
>
Apparently. Don't exist people to be consistent with their alleged
beliefs. It's frustrating and can lead to the "double binds" which
Bateson (whose theories RD Laing borrowed) claimed were a cause of
madness. I would suggest that Nik has given you a sampling of how this
works. If it follows usenet patterns both sides will soon be trading
mostly insults because the issues are not "truth" but ego.
Exploring this kind of behavior was one of the agendas in the neu
neutopian movement. Bill Cleere's latest commentary on "Usenet
controversy" (if I have the thread name right) in alt.pouting.sandwich
gives a brief review of what the neu neutopian movement referred to as
"buttons." Consciously or unconsciously (or more likely a mixture of
both) Nik seems to be using them successfully on you.
Andrea Chen
>
> Dale Houstman wrote:
> >
> >
> >
>but in fact if he does as you claim (falls
> back to insult)
Dale:
Actually going back and looking at some of the earlier posts in this
thread I would note that not only Nik but someone else has resorted to
insult (a spoonful of brains comes to mind.)
I also do find that Nik did make a number of valid points. Like you
I'm a bit uncomfortable with the extreme relativism he seems to imply
(this is a common fault in postmodernism with similar behaviors dating
even further back all the way (at least) to the romanticism of Byron).
I also agree with your general drift and see that you are able to see at
least some of the complexity I have stressed.
I do also have sympathy for aspects of Nic's position. One reason I
somewhat dislike the early surrealists was Breton's attempt at autocracy
(yet his doctrines were not consistent leaving us to ask which Breton?)
And during the time period when he was active many works labeled
surrealist by the critics of that time were not consistent with any of
his doctrines. Also if I remember correctly the term was originally
coined by Appolinaire who gave it a meaning quite different than
Breton's.
Now if I understand Nic correctly he has roughly argued that the term
surrealism isn't simply a historical footnote, but a living term (and
many do identify with it) which he can chose to redefine in his image.
This is somewhat consistent with the smashing of icons which surealism
(like so many other artistic movements) appeared to embrace. IMO Nik's
position is legitimate and justified by artistic tradition. It is a
rejection of rigididity and heirarchy though it muddles things by
leading to several definitions of surrealism (which must then be
specified, but many words have multiple definitions)
I was interested in your statement that unless used as a poetic
metaphor "an apple as a lawnmower" is an indication of mental
dysfunction (with the implication that this is bad). Now there are many
people who would argue that art and artistic perception should not be
separated from daily living and perception. In other words these wild
and zany (if not quite understandable) visions should not be isolated in
poems and universities. IMO this is a legitimate position and
consistent with the spirit (or that part of the spirit which attracts
me) of surrealism.
And in this particular case Nik's relativism is (I think) correct.
It's an aesthetic choice, artists and experiencers of art do chose
positions consistent with their temperment and the (chose your word)
they are trying to (develop, create understand, explore...)
As for positions Nik seems to take elsewhere on the general nature of
reality, my own tendency is to side with you. But also remember that
this conversation is of the sort that pushes people to extremes so more
calmly Nic might qualify his acceptance of all ideas or add things like
"my view of reality says that there are certain ideas (such as Jews are
parasites and must be destroyed) that must be opposed" that would move
him to a position that you and I would find more justified. Or Nic may
simply be bating you and trying to make the (extremist) point on the
need to smash all doctrine. Or for various reasons he may be unable to
logically (though not necessarily in his actions) be incapable of
accepting the complexity of true and not true. Certainly as a debating
position it gives him certain advantages since it seems to bring a
degree of serenity.
To me the really important truth (as I said in the previous post) is
that you're locked in an endless loop and exemplifying the event
encompassed in Godwin's law (I would say "good German" is close enough
to "Nazi") which would indicate that little or no more useful
information will be exhibited in this thread (unless someone like me
intervenes.)
Dale Houstman
"Actually going back and looking at some of the earlier posts in this
thread I would note that not only Nik but someone else has resorted to
insult (a spoonful of brains comes to mind.)" ***
That comment was only posted in response to several previous insults by the selff-important Nik, who then lied about having said them, then lied about his asking me to prove that he had said them; this is relativism as a postive evil. In other words there was a significant chronological order. The insult I issued was only meant as a riposte to his filthy little keyboard fingers. He has since gone on to repost the same insults (which are no more clever than his Poster ideas, which were pathetic).I do not disagree with you on Breton's rather imperious character. But that
doesn't mean Surrealism can accommodate any religious attitude that comes
along. The fact about "New Age" religion is that it is purely bourgeois and
rather more a consumer good than a pathway: the rules are all too easy, so that
one can believe without personal cost. One believes and goes home, if that
belief gets in the way of (say) your stock earnings. Really, these beliefs are
a sop to a hurt conscience that forgets to include penance. Thus, since there
is only "revelation" and no redemption, they are hollow egotisms.
"Also if I remember correctly
the term was originally coined by Appolinaire who gave it a meaning quite
different than Breton's."
This is true, but irrelevant: the word "avant
garde" was coined by militarists, but there are not many who confuse it
for a mliitary term these days. And while it is also true
(as I have already stated) that many surrealist works would not precisely
fit his
original definition (as he was quite aware of by the 2nd Manifesto)
there still is only so far you can stretch a concept before it becomes
worthless: Religious belief is just outside
the realm of the word as defined by anyone! Except Nik. But Nik's (as
he says) "a
damned fool".
As for the rest, you actually seem capable of discourse,
which Nik has evolved
beyond. I won't go into (here) the difference between poetic convention
and
day-to-day connotation except to say (as I have before) that one cannot
revolt
against a reality and use its terms as a weapon unless one has come
to understand
the position those terms hold in the world. to say that "everything
is nothing: and vice versa is an entirely untenable position for anyone
engaged in civil discourse, and
is more a defensive posture rather than a belief system: he thus avoids
having to
discuss anything. Also when he says "All statements are equally true"
and then
states that he can choose not to believe what others say he is entwined
in a
contradiction of rather massive proportions.
I meant it when I said "goodbye" to him, despite
his attempt to turn it into as game.
I have also spoken to Brandon about this: it is (as you say) a hopeless
loop, which
entertains only the loopy. Nik is convinced (quite incorrectly) that
he has a belief
system because it makes him happy; but self-titillation is one of the
worst (not the
best, as he thinks) measures of a philosophy's value.
Thank you for your response,
Dale
Andrea Chen
> This is true, but irrelevant: the word "avant garde" was coined by
> militarists, but there are not many who confuse it for a mliitary term
> these days. And while it is also true
> (as I have already stated) that many surrealist works would not
> precisely fit his
> original definition (as he was quite aware of by the 2nd Manifesto)
> there still is only so far you can stretch a concept before it becomes
> worthless:
This is "true." But there is a bit of debate about where the
stretching can occur. I don't really keep up with the group, but my
impression of Brandon is that his definition is (by my standards) overly
rigid and that a person may legitimately claim the term surrealist with
ideas very different than his.
One of my peeves about postmodernists, cyberpunks, surrealists, gonzo
journalists and other declared rebels on the net is very often they get
into little enclaves, their art is confined to individualistic pieces
and they tend to lock themselves into little cliques. My belief is that
they don't actively explore the potential of this medium.
There are many opportunities to create collaborative art, to throw
divergent sets of people together, to create hallucinations to merge
fiction with percieved realities (eg. stories about aliens)
I spent several years experimenting with this medium and had some
success. Though of limited talents myself, several brilliant people
clustered around, a somewhat disruptive art (sometimes getting out of
control) did emerge, it did challenge and from a surrealistic set of
standards did help reveal the behaviors of the unconscious, did involve
collaborative creations, did disjoint realities and otherwise at least
crudely meet goals associated with various schools of modern art.
I find that most people are afraid to experiment. Often the people who
pride themselves on being rebels are those who create the most insular
groups and mantain the status quo. I personally have always taken some
joy in disrupting such things and throwing in new themes and people.
I will jump a bit here and note that in your letter you find the
concept of buttons rephrensible. But the reality is that you can't
change them. They are there and are often most irresponsibly employed
by those who are unaware of what they are doing. Unfortunatly the most
powerful ones are often nasty.
One thing the neu neutopian movement used to do was go into a group and
say "these are your buttons, we will press them and you will respond in
this way." We used to tease such people by claiming that we had
programmed them (challenging their sense of autonomy) and to a degree we
had. We tried to explain and demonstrate things which were already
happening, to make the unconscious conscious. This was only one of our
themes, but I would submit that it is surrealist.
And all of us are vulnerable to certain buttons. They may be
rephrensible, but you can't escape them. There are also all sorts of
interesting patterns (eg. Dombrowski's the messenger is the message)
I would argue that this is in some ways a next stage of surrealism (or
at least somewhat consistent with it) It involves exploration of the
ways people think and how messages are communicated. The powers that be
in this society are acutely aware of these issues, artists are not and
I do believe that so long as this is the case art will be of limited
power to act on the minds (the ecology of ideas) around us.
I am describing this because I suspect Nik might have sensed something
he felt was pompous (and we can all be pompous) and is trying to
undermine this. Rather than close your mind forever to what he has to
say, I suggest you try and detach. I do sense some interesting ideas
there and think that both of you have forced yourself to extremes.
> Religious belief is just outside
> the realm of the word as defined by anyone!
I'm not sure. Certainly Freud argued that mythic structures were part
of the unconscious. I can see certain lines of thought developing in
this direction. Attempts at the creation of random art also have
similarities to certain magical practices.
And it could also be claimed that Breton's surrealism was a quasi
religion.
This is a complicated subject (as is most of it), but one thing to
remember is that "surrealism" is an enticing word. Many want to claim
it. Common usages often smother the technical (and this can be
unfortunate), but in defence of such trends they could potentially make
a thing primarily of academic interest vital and living again. Do let
yourself be shaken and at least consider the unacceptable.
And if Nik remains wrong on some very vital issues, so are we all.
Dale Houstman
Andrea Chen wrote:
"One of my peeves about postmodernists, cyberpunks,
surrealists, gonzo
journalists and other declared rebels on the net is very often they
get into little enclaves"
Sounds cozy. Are these enclaves anything like
the Hobbits' burrows, or
Bugs Bunny's furnished hole in the ground? If so, I'm there!
I can't speak for Brandon, but I don't find excluding
religion from Surrealism
to be particulalry limiting since religion is essentially nothing.
All the ecstatic aspects
of it are more than appreciated within even the most "conventional"
Surrealist
circles, and all that leaves are its internal rigidities and moralistic
bugaboos. This
leaves plenty of room for research and action. So I can't say that
I've been arguing
for a scaling down of the subject, merely a giving of its due.
Well... I know I can't change the reprehensible concept
of "buttons" as a philosophical
ideal, but I feel quite a liberty to express my revulsion at such a
piece of shit disguised
as thought, and I suppose I will continue to do so at intervals.
This "button presser" thing is no more than another version
of "tough love" or
the Dianetic E-meter scam: it isn't even new, but just a bit tired
and "haven't we
all been there before". "I'll tease you into a new awareness of yourself"
isn't even
viable. Daddy can use it to "expand" Mommy's mind, and then Mommy can
use it on Daddy Junior. I think it's called abuse. A nice history there.
As I said
it is quite one thing to confront entrenched authority and bourgeois
social planners,
and quite another to push a hollow belief system on those as disenfranchised
as
yourself. Or are you actually suggesting that it is the same thing
to face down
an army as it is to drive a poor family from their house with humiliations,
just to
prove a psychological point that has already been demonstrated time
and time
again? If you must use these "buttons" try and direct your new-found
powers in
some efficacious direction. And it would be nice also, if you had a
belief system
behind the facade of psycho-tools, or your victory will be short-lived
and
fragile. It isn't a matter of who you can defeat or how entirely you
can bring
them to your camp, it's whether that camp is an prison camp or a social
evolvement.
Nik's victories (if they are truly indicative of this philosophy) are
profoundly
empty. It is not impressive.
I have listened to everything that Nik has said, and I
have responded. When
he says something of any import or grace at all I will be the first
to notice it. But
I think when he undoes all his buttons, all we'll see is an empty shirt.
I think you
are giving him entirely too much credit for cleverness.
Dale "Everything and Nothing" Houstman
Andrea Chen
You may have been wondering why I was posting this thread to aps I was
too. But now it seems to me that it offers some grist for your Usenet
controversy analysis.
Dale Houstman wrote:
>
>
> This "button presser" thing is no more than another version of
> "tough love" or
> the Dianetic E-meter scam: it isn't even new, but just a bit tired and
> "haven't we
> all been there before". "I'll tease you into a new awareness of
> yourself" isn't even
> viable. Daddy can use it to "expand" Mommy's mind, and then Mommy can
> use it on Daddy Junior. I think it's called abuse.
It seems I pushed some buttons. As for you "having been there before"
why are you trying to push my buttons? Your post is insulting, you go
on to make moral judgements based on a few points I've made. I mean
gosh you even compare with Scientology which is a BIG BUTTON on the
net. The "normal" response to this would be anger at which point we
could enter another endless loop.
>A nice history
> there. As I said
> it is quite one thing to confront entrenched authority and bourgeois
> social planners,
> and quite another to push a hollow belief system on those as
> disenfranchised as
> yourself.
Fascinating. You provide perfect examples. Having been involved (in
my younger days) in a few movements, one thing I noticed is there
tendency to self destruct. Bitter battles would develop over all sorts
of issues (my favorite was i communal house arguing that they didn't
have to try and conserve leaflets because they didn't use toilet
paper.)
Now in a few minutes you have gone from friendly comments to angry
assumptions and demonstrated how we carry and perpetuate the "buttons"
which destroy collaboration among the "disenfranchised."
You know if I am aware of these buttons, I might be able to say I'm
sorry. I didn't mean to enrage you and was trying in a calm way to make
some observations. Obviously they hit on points I didn't expect. So I
will say with some sincerity I am sorry. I didn't mean to imply any
attack on you.
> Or are you actually suggesting that it is the same thing to
> face down
> an army as it is to drive a poor family from their house with
> humiliations,
I never mentioned armies. I do think that my driving poor families
from their homes with taunts is an event too many people dwell on.
After all I could have nerve gassed them.
Now I suspect the above statement will make you angry. But your
statement made me amused in an awed sort of way. Somehow statements of
mine (buttons) translated through a set of logics which pushed othr
buttons and now I'm abusing "widows and orphans" (another famous
button.)
>just to
> prove a psychological point that has already been demonstrated time
> and time
> again?
Because no matter how often it's demonstrated most people don't seem to
get it. Unless you're trolling me (which would be a fine piece of art)
you are falling for it even though you say you know all about it.
>If you must use these "buttons" try and direct your new-found
> powers in
> some efficacious direction.
Like your post? First of all I was discussing the transmission of
images, and briefly mentioning the hallucinary nature of this medium and
the opportunities it offers for "art" along with a meta art of examining
these transmissions, transformations and mutations.
Suddenly I'm faced with an "efficacious" post which indicates that I'm
some dastardly fiend.
> And it would be nice also, if you had a
> belief system
> behind the facade of psycho-tools, or your victory will be short-lived
> and
> fragile.
I see.
>It isn't a matter of who you can defeat
Yet you reply with the buttons of anger. You attempt to make this a
situation where we both try to win. But of course the other person
never admits losing on Usenet, thus the endless loop.
However in the terms *you* have defined (winning and losing) you would
probably in the hearts and minds of many people have suffered a loss.
Why? Because I don't respond by calling you names, claiming you have no
principles and so on.
All I can think is that I unintentionally hit upon a whole set of pent
up issues, that perhaps I awakened your recent conflict. These
"buttons" and their associated logics have indeed "programmed" you. In
other posts I see a fairly intelligent individual loudly proclaiming his
desire for civilized discussion and then suddenly...
You seem to have some interest in "causes" (is this a button?) Such
causes often involve adversarial relationships. It seems likely to me
that a skilled manipulator could reduce you to a raving maniac thus
discrediting you even if what you said was "right."
This is going to anger you, but I don't think you have any grasp of my
pseudo psychology. You think it's obvious and yet you fall victim to
what I was describing.
I mean Bill, what would happen to this guy is we turned Spunky Lucy on
him?
> or how entirely you
> can bring
> them to your camp, it's whether that camp is an prison camp or a
> social evolvement.
Actually I would prefer neither. But I wasn't really trying to bring
people into my "camp." I was arguing for demonstrating and
understanding the mechanisms by which we communicate.
> Nik's victories (if they are truly indicative of this philosophy) are
> profoundly
> empty.
I never mentioned Nik's "victories." I stated that he had some
interesting points and that if one ignored the relativist extremism
(implied in some of what he said) that these were worthy of discussion.
I basically said my quick reading of him implied some intelligence.
I said the same thing of you, but somehow this becomes an eithetr/or
situation. (see my first post to this thread)
As far as Nick's behaviors (accepting your version) I suggested that
there could be a number of causes and triggers (is that better than
buttons?)
>It is not impressive.
>
> I have listened to everything that Nik has said, and I have
> responded. When
> he says something of any import or grace at all I will be the first to
> notice it. But
> I think when he undoes all his buttons, all we'll see is an empty
> shirt. I think you
> are giving him entirely too much credit for cleverness.
>
I think Nik is a very big BUTTON and my kind statements about him a big
factor in your response. This is fairly predictable. There was clearly
a lot of irritation developed. Of course I could be wrong.
Big Hug
(((((((((Dale)))))))))
I mean this.
>
>
Andrea Chen
>
> I don't understand this entire post. Who is Bill? Why is he mad? Who are
> alt.pouting.sandwich? Why is this happening?
> ---BJF
>
Honest Bill. It just happens when I'm around. I don't know why.
It looks like I drove just about everyone but Lucy off your group.
Sorry about that.
Brandon J. Freels
alt.pouting.sandwich? Why is this happening?
---BJF
Andrea Chen wrote in message <365DB3...@earthlink.net>...
Brandon J. Freels
>I don't really keep up with the group, but my impression of Brandon is that
his >definition is (by my standards) overly rigid and that a person may
legitimately claim >the term surrealist with ideas very different than his.
Brandon responds:
Here is my "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).
Dale Houstman
Andrea Chen,
You really don't like being not totally agreed with, do you?
Buttons? Let's see... someone has discovered that people "like"
getting positive attention, and "dislike" getting negative attention.
And I thought all the geniuses were dead...
Dale Houstman
Andrea Chen
>
> Andrea Chen,
>
> You really don't like being not totally agreed with, do you?
>
This is an example the amazing self editing that people are capable
of. There is every reason to believe that Dale is "sincere."
My first posts mentioned buttons (a well known word) speculating how
the conversation between Dale and Nik had degenerated to the level of
their pressing and was no longer on an intellectual level. This is a
well known Usenet event.
I next briefly mentioned the neu neutopian experiment which was
essentially a loose connection of writers collaborating to build
entertainment (on topic to the group) and how as a part of the program
we might suggest to the readers in alt.alien.visitors "we are now going
to convince you that we are government disinfo agents" or to readers of
ark "we will now identify with hive mind (still a popular symbol there)"
It was simply an attempt to play with symbols and ideas and to provide
some analysis of what happens in group communication for which Usenet is
perfect because it does provide a record.
At this point Dale goes into a frenzy. We get no discussion of
collaborative art in this medium, but accusations of "abuse" (and
worse). This is "mild disagreement." It consists of buzzwords
(buttons) comparing me to scientologists, the eviction of families, it
goes on to proclaim I have no moral values and then pretty much closes
up in a discussion of "winning." This last adversarial referance did
puzzle me. It is perhaps indicative of Dale's state of mind. It is
indicative of the mind of many on Usenet. The goal wasn't "victory" but
complex collaborative stories and commentaries welding the serious and
the absurd.
There was at times commentary on such events (similar to this) pointing
out particular responses which seemed to be absurd, noting mental
patterns in people (such as their tendency to believe that you believe
the most absurd stuff (fairly obvious humor) if you accuse them of being
a secret agent of some sort because 1) It's a common behavior of kooks
2) It flatters their ego).
This stuff is "obvious" to Dale. Fine. Yet he finds the concepts of
buttons "rephrensible." Perhaps, but it is. People use symbols to
manipulate each other all the time. A response such as Dale made
earlier filled with all sorts of accusations, claims of moral
superioriority etc. is filled with exactly these sorts of buttons.
Specifically point out this behavior to Dale and what is the response:
"You really don't like being totally agreed with?" Dale is now trying
to move himself to the high moral ground, to suggest that he is open to
ideas, that his previous response was mild, reasoned etc. and that my
response to his was not.
Now this may be amazing (at least it still shocks me even though I've
seen it many times), but Dale probably doesn't find anything offensive
in his earlier post just as he never mentioned that he had insulted Nik,
but portrayed himself as an innocent victim (both clearly as in a
spoonful of brains and implicitely such as his claims that Nik's ideas
have absolutely no value.) Dale is very, very sensitive to atacks (real
and implied) on himself and is completely unaware that he attacks
others. He is to return to an earlier theme simply speaking the
"truth."
Previous neu neutopian experiment (*one* of which goals was to call
attention to what was actually happening the here and now so that people
could avoid pitfalls) suggests that Dale will not change. In
conversations (except with erstwhile allies (eg. Dombrowski's the medium
is the message) some statement will offend him, he will focus on this
and the conversation will head for the endless loop of attacks (and in
dale's case a bit of whining)
> Buttons? Let's see... someone has discovered that people "like"
> getting positive attention, and "dislike" getting negative attention.
>
Actually it becomes a bit more complex than that. There has been some
empirical analysis of specific symbols and there various effects such as
Bill Cleere's observation that the knights templars introduced at a
certain point can make the audience go wild.
Artists have been very aware of this throughout history and nowadays
the powers that be spend fortunes (in the advertising industry, politics
etc.) studying what effect certain symbols and images have, how they
spread etc. Meanwhile we are spreading symbols, images and effecting
our neigbors (often in destructive ways) everywhere and especially on
Usenet. It is (to me) a fascinating subject and Usenet provides a
powerful tool for watching such effects.
The word button (obviously a button to you) provides a term, it
standarze discussion and commentary on social behaviors is potentially
useful (many people are not prepared for the effect usenet will have on
them, it can pull them with powerful emotional intensity, they literally
lose control and are not prepared for the many levels of communication,
even the structure of a well made troll is unknown) and is consistent
with certain schools of *Modern* art in which the play itself is
analyzed (the structures, physical and symbolic revealed) and to some
degree (to the extent that they participate and play) the audience.
> And I thought all the geniuses were dead...
>
Thankyou. Though except in parody I never claimed to be a genuis
(though I suspect you may have such suspicions about yourself). I have
simply argued that this medium offers an opportunity to explore many
theories and techniques of art, in many ways a unique opportunity.
These methods are indeed often explored, but typically intuitively. The
neu neutopian movement (neutopia is in itself a button, an appeal to
absurdity based on our honoring of "kooks" who we claim provide a form
of identity the net and who we hope to raise up like Emperor Norton was
in San Francisco) did play with these forms. The button and other tools
(neu neural threads for crossposting which when carefully chosen CAN
bring disparate groups together to work on problems and cross
fertilize), the image of the net as a single giant computer (not
original) with every human and AI a neuron... each of these and many
more (including buttons) were (and are) a part of a play, things for
people to play (sorry can't resist the pun) with.
I (and others) spent a lot of time experimenting with this medium.
There were some successes, many failures, and a lot of learning. Now
clearly this has no interest to you Dale, but it was an attempt at art,
an art which includes some of the themes of surrealism.
No it doesn't take genuis to take a net kook who many people enjoy
flaming, to elevate her name and praise her, then in her name propagate
a philosophy (very, verry) different than your own (incorporating many
of her words, such as massagasm, lovalution, arkologies), then watch the
consternation of people to whom that kook is a button, watch the very
different levels of perception including people who despite many (many)
clear statements otherwise are unable to separate you from the original
doctrine. They have become so fixed in their impression of a word that
they can't notice when the meaning is purposefully and consistently
altered.
No it doesn't take genuis to declare that on Usenet (in reverse of
normal society) men get to become honorary women (and earn the title of
Doctress (as in Doctress Neutopia)) But it's fascinating to see which
men good humoredly take on the title and which ones react in rage.
Another source of rage was people (who typically styled themselves
artists and rebels) who responded to our efforts in the same dismissive
manner that you do. The replies themselves are predictable (an
indication that certain buttons set off certain response) "boring" "of
no interest" "obvious" etc. Amazingly many of these people would spend
a great deal of time repeating these praises as though they were some
sort of mantra even though there certainly is plenty of boring,
unoriginal and obvious posts on Usenet ours clearly pressed some
buttons. In fact some people became obsessed.
It could happen to you Dale, believe me it could. Your responses are
so predictable and fit a common pattern. You are unable to percieve
things (such as the fact that your earlier response to me was filled
with insults) People can press your buttons Dale and you will have no
way of letting yourself see whats happening (the Freudian concept of
repression.)
Incidently Dale a pop psychology observation (not original, but
somewhat confirmed by my observation of quite a few people) is that
people who react most fiercely to the concept of "button" are those who
play them (unconsciously) most consistently. I have watched you in
several threads and in each case you resort to denial of the
intellectual value and the morality of the other person. Now this isn't
really enough evidence to draw many conclusions on, but Dale you do fit
a common pattern of behaviors.
I mean lets face facts Dale. People who have sincerely tried to end
(or control or at least understand) manipulative behaviors have noted
them everywhere. They are not particualrly disturbed by the idea of
buttons. They see them everywhere because they notice how certain
statements start to trigger certain reactions. In a very short post
which I responded to at length you made sveral statements which
ordinarly will trigger irritation (at a minimum) in their recpients (eg.
I can't take the slightest criticism, you also trivialized a word (not
very important to me, but useful as a standard name) by saying that it
comes down to "liking and not liking praise and criticism." While my
description was certainly sketchy (and this is my last attempt for a
while to deepen it), there was enough information for you to infer that
the use of the word "buttons" involved specific symbols with highly
likely effects. The goal is to analyze what symbols have what effetcts
(there are variances on different individuals and environments), how to
sensitize some buttons, desensitize others, basically a lot of rather
primitive psychology which could be pragmatically applied to groups and
make people more aware of what was happening and hopefully more able to
deal with such stimulus in the future.
This *is* an obvious idea. Yet we as people don't do it. We are
manipulated. Our buttons get pushed (and buttons act on all sorts of
levels including the purely intellectual where the use of one word (or
concept) may frequently lead to discussions involving another with no
direct and obvious connection. Now the basic reality behind this *is*
simple, the actual behaviors are far more complex and often unexpected.
All the neu neutopian movement did was practice a form of entertainment
(a collective theatre of the absurd) which incorporated observation of
such things. Buttons were part of the vocabulary in a complex array of
events working at several levels. At times it did work, at times it
failed. But one of the interesting things it did discover was reactions
such as your own and yes these reactions were incorporated into the
work.
Bill Cleere
>
> I don't understand this entire post. Who is Bill? Why is he mad? Who are
> alt.pouting.sandwich? Why is this happening?
> ---BJF
I understand little, Brandon, but here it is:
(1) I'm Bill, merely an instructor in English Literature and
History at the newsgroup alt.pouting.sandwich (otherwise
nobody.)
(2) I'm totally not mad at anybody. A fellow named Dale,
I think, is mad at another named Nik, and getting a little
steamed at Andrea Chen into the bargain.
(3) alt.pouting.sandwich is Usenet's leading newsgroup for
the discussion of the evolution of the Net into a new
form of social organization. A good deal of bullshit is
also thrown around, always in the spirit of fun.
(4) All I know is, that charming imp Andrea cross-posted
this excellent thread into a.p.s., and spray-painted my
name on it, and I'm going to try to respond to the
previous post so as to have fewer ">"s.
-- Bill Cleere
Bill Cleere
>
> Hi Bill:
>
> You may have been wondering why I was posting this thread to aps I was
> too. But now it seems to me that it offers some grist for your Usenet
> controversy analysis.
Thank you, Andrea, but...
It's gone quite beyond that, I'm afraid.
Funny. We all get our disconnects a little differently. Mine
comes in the intersection between Dale's seriousness and your
correct observations.
There's something going on here that I can't put my finger on.
I apologize, because the social, as opposed to aesthetic,
aspect of surrealism is what's most important to me.
"Painting is punching"
I took alt.surrealism out of the headers. Maybe if I go over
there I can find something to respond to.
Have you ever felt like you were stuttering on Usenet? I'm not
used to this. Odd...
Andrea Chen
>
> Andrea Chen wrote:
> >
> > Hi Bill:
> >
> > You may have been wondering why I was posting this thread to aps I was
> > too. But now it seems to me that it offers some grist for your Usenet
> > controversy analysis.
>
> Thank you, Andrea, but...
>
> It's gone quite beyond that, I'm afraid.
>
> Funny. We all get our disconnects a little differently. Mine
> comes in the intersection between Dale's seriousness and your
> correct observations.
>
> There's something going on here that I can't put my finger on.
> I apologize, because the social, as opposed to aesthetic,
> aspect of surrealism is what's most important to me.
>
Don't apologize Bill. You are seeing aspects of my work that you
didn't see before. A lot of it baffles me. I appreciate your remark
about my "correct observations." At times I do in fact lose trust in
myself.
But this has indeed happened over and over again. Apparently
intelligent people like Brandon are completely unconscious of the
predictable effects of their behavior (unlike me who usually knows when
I'm being insulting.)
It frightens me and it's an example of what I call taboos.
This is the last time I will comment on it (in this group), but things
like this have intrigued (and seriously worried me). It says a lot
about what is possible through the (ideal) means of working through
problems by communication.
> "Painting is punching"
>
> I took alt.surrealism out of the headers.
This is good. If I stay around I will try to make (wise) use of
crossposts to introduce interesting conversations and attract
interesting people to your group. BUT (and I found this out the hard)
way the neu neural threads must be cut. Otherwise paths can develop.
Those in aps who are interested can go over there.
> Maybe if I go over
> there I can find something to respond to.
There is a bit of independant stuff.
>
> Have you ever felt like you were stuttering on Usenet? I'm not
> used to this. Odd...
>
It's that old neu neutopian feeling.
Strange things happen. I can't explain it. And most of us don't see
what's going on. There have been some excellant parodies and forgeries
of me. I sometimes wish the people who would do it would explain me to
me. But they rarely clarify. I'm not sure if they can. They just see
angles and express these showing me things that I didn't even know. And
the thing is (and this isn't modesty) I'm not really the big show. I'm
kind of a "strange attractor" all kinds of events build up around me.
You know there is a serious UFO group called themselves "ground crew"
now they're light workers and they communicate with the Galactic
Federation. They have or used to have a month of "chen" when all sort of
big things were supposed to happen (don't ask me to explain their
calender). The guy who posts their stuff is named Paladin (or something
close).
There was also "Master Chen" in texas. Something of his was published
recently so you should be able to find that in deja news. It's the kind
of small coincidence that doesn't mean much until you see lots of them.
And in alt.religion.angels I found out one of the posters was briefly
referring to his/herself (as Chenia or something close. It's a little
bit spooky.
But the more explainable events on Usenet are spookier. The
information which gets missed or distorted. The strange effects that
certain messages have.
I can't explain it. And I don't want to boast but I probably know more
about it than anyone else. I've been working on it for 6 years and in
some ways I can't understand I seem able to cause it.
Incidently when you independently write your usenet notes, slip in neu
neutopia somewhere. There is a lot of repetition but I'm trying to
cluster my observations and opinions in articles which contain that key
word. While you don't need to talk about neu neutopia that might
increase the chance that some future researchers (and pranksters) will
see your points which are from a different angle and of course contain a
lot of information that mine don't.
I know this sounds egotistic, but I think I say things about this
medium that would make anyone who wants to make a serious study of it
take a glance at my stuff.
Brandon J. Freels
>(2) I'm totally not mad at anybody. A fellow named Dale,
>I think, is mad at another named Nik, and getting a little
>steamed at Andrea Chen into the bargain.
Brandon responds:
One of my main objection to Andrea Chen's further post is her assumption
that Dale was angry. I read his original post to her, and saw both
corosponders mirroring the same intellectual attitude.
Robert Scott Martin
>Here is my "working" definition of "Surrealism" ---
Hi, Brandon. How does what you've written here differ from a Mondrian
boogie-woogie? He certainly pruned life into a place of clear
understanding where thoughts were pure, yet free.
>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).
I guess my question is whether Eden is a garden or the Wood. Paris or
Tahiti?
Kisses,
Catherine Bush
--
CONFIDENTIAL TO ANDREA CHEN: Welcome back, darling. Your temple is
prepared, the Cocktail Party That Never Ends.
Brandon J. Freels
>boogie-woogie? He certainly pruned life into a place of clear
>understanding where thoughts were pure, yet free.
Brandon: Mondrian's boogie-woogie was an attempt to minimize elements. Its
philosophy has less to do with the inner self, and more to do with
manipulating visual perception. It is reducing, rather than enhancing, and
enhancement is what Surrealism is after. The "pruning" that takes place with
Surrealism is the pruning of logic from life --- logic being an artificial
obligation. Enhancement begins simultaneously with the removal of these
obligations.