Meow Brigade.
Johnny Gunn
barrett john erickson wrote:
> Andrea Chen wrote:
> >
> > Medical Catastrophe wrote:
> > >
>
> sorry, "Andrea", i don't have the patience to read all this drivel about burning
> cats. can you just give me a brief summary of what part of it you think is relevant
> to "surrealism"?
the part about matchmaking and controlling the world without ever having to touch
anything or anybody in it and a felixed sense of humor and a sink full of dirty dishes
and a click in the dark and a blooming yellow chrysanthemum three times the size of the
universe
>
>
> -- 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
Andrea Chen
>
> Andrea Chen wrote:
> >
> > Medical Catastrophe wrote:
> > >
>
> sorry, "Andrea", i don't have the patience to read all this drivel about burning
> cats. can you just give me a brief summary of what part of it you think is relevant
> to "surrealism"?
If indeed surrealism is about movement(s) (and I should remark
surrealism as an academic study is "surrealist" (pop definition) in
itself) then:
How movements inflame and spread through this medium (in some ways a
mirror of society) *is* relevant.
>
> "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
I'm surprised you still keep this quote. As anyone with some education
can tell you it's a restatement of things said thousands of years ago in
Taoism. Yet when Talysman, Nik and others argued the relevance of such
things as a drunken dragon on a cloud to surrealism and were then
attacked; not once did you speak up in their defence because those doing
the attacking were your allies (the messager is the message.) Similarly
this statement implies the point beyond truth and lies; another issue
raised by the unacceptable, the nonsurrealists; the "narcissists" and
yet you were once again silent.
This again confirms a neu neutopian hypothesis; those who are timid;
those who are comformists seek a *symbol* of rebellion (a mirror image)
which they then distort in their own image.
How else do we explain Dale's complete embracement of Stefan's
(satirical but accurate) portrayal of the authoritarian, obedient
stance?
In closing I can explain nothing about surrealism to you; because it's
a concept you can't understand. You think by learning some names and
looking at some pictures you can attain this state you so desperately
desire; but the Tao laughs at yourself mockery as your attempt at Yin
turns into the most rigid Yang.
You would corrupt surrealism and make it meaningless, but (terrible
mockery of what's wrong and right) because it retains market appeal;
people will take it; reinvent it and keep it alive while you stomp your
feet and say "no no no!" they will be flipping each other's minds
tossing ymmy pies in their faces while you open your authoriative book
on what is (read who is) and isn't surrealist; pull from it an image and
hold in your hand a lump of coal.
Meanwhile Lao Tzu dances on a cloud of orgone which everyone takes to
be a flying saucer...
Except the clown taking tickets at the circus who knows it's a Zeppelin
with a picture of Ben Franklin on it and (kindly) says to you: "You have
a rock, do you have a feather?"
And you angrily throw the coal at him; it unites it's flaming and they
warm their hands and make jumping frogs from the smoke; you flee to your
room and open your book, put on your austere professor jammies and say
"this is surrealism, I don't care what those bad children say. Daddy
told me it has nothing to do with pink elephants riding pogo sticks and
daddy loves me more anyway, someday he'll give me a full professorship
and if anyone says something wrong about surrealism I'll flunk them and
they'll turnm into dishwashers dreaming of plutonium" And with this
happy thought you go to sleep. And you don't even remember the aliens
who visit you during the night because that isn't surrealistic, it isn't
in the book that daddy gave you.
NO CARRIER
barrett john erickson
Andrea Chen wrote:
>
> barrett john erickson wrote:
> >
> > Andrea Chen wrote:
> > >
> > > Medical Catastrophe wrote:
> > > >
> >
> > sorry, "Andrea", i don't have the patience to read all this drivel about burning
> > cats. can you just give me a brief summary of what part of it you think is relevant
> > to "surrealism"?
>
> If indeed surrealism is about movement(s) (and I should remark
> surrealism as an academic study is "surrealist" (pop definition) in
> itself) then:
>
> How movements inflame and spread through this medium (in some ways a
> mirror of society) *is* relevant.
> [...]
Ahhhh! OK.
I can see now -- from this, and your later contortions -- that it _was_ just your
conceptual dyslexia rattling around in the emptiness of "neu" again.
I suppose it was indelicate of me to call attention to it.
-- barrett
bar...@MagneticFields.org
http://www.MagneticFields.org/
"Everything tends to make us believe that there exists a certain point of the mind at
Bill Cleere
>
> Heraclitus: "The path up and the path down are one and the same" (Fr. 60)
>
> I also see a connection between Breton's statement and Hegel's thesis,
> antithesis, and synthesis concept.
Hegel never used those terms. They were invented by the
Marxists to criticize Hegel. Hegel specifically rejected
the notion that his philosophy of history could be
reduced to this banal triune construct.
-- Bill Cleere
Status: res. LoyolaNet. Expect.destin. Fumat pro Soc.
Andrea Chen
>
> > I'm surprised you still keep this quote. As anyone with some education
> >can tell you it's a restatement of things said thousands of years ago in
> >Taoism.
>
>
Actually it's the statement of a direct experience (real or imagined,
emotional and intellectual.) Taoism is a sophisticated exploration of
this merging into opposites and not (as you dismissed it) simply "nature
worship."
As for your comment on Hegel, the terms thesis, anti thesis and
synthesis are Marx's, he claimed to find them in Hegal (do you know how
Marx claimed to turn Hegel on his head? Can you explain how Mao turned
Marx on HIS head.)
Incidently the Marxian terms imply progress and evolution through
conflict; not a merging of mental states into the chaos. Marx was very
much opposed to such things and would have dismissed surrealism as a
pretty toy of the capitalist upper classes designed to distract from the
*real* issues.
Andrea Chen
>
> Bill Cleere wrote
> >Hegel never used those terms. They were invented by the
> >Marxists to criticize Hegel. Hegel specifically rejected
> >the notion that his philosophy of history could be
> >reduced to this banal triune construct.
>
> Then here we have the connection between Surrealism and Marxism. Thank you
> Bill.
Brandon is really surreal. It's like he's read the Readers Digest
World History of Philosophy (condensed version.) I think he must be a
college freshman, he has no sense of the context; no sense of history
(this has come up before with Marx, the unconscious and almost every
sibject he dares pontificate on). To associate Marx with a fairly
frequent "mystical" state of mind (also found in the Gospel of Thomas,
perhaps Doctress Glass would care to provide more?) does indeed blur the
edges of reality creating this Usenet effect were one can't distinguish
anything from troll with the very best ones offered in full sincerity so
the greatest ansurdity we can create is simply to exho and ask our
question for today:
What is the relation of surrealism and Santa Claus?
Or more seriously Brandon how do you resolve Breton's statement with
your insistence on truth (and the denial that subjective (apparently
valid) conceptions differ)?
You do this doublethink this flipping from one reality to another; but
there is no "conscious" sense of it; thus proving the validity of the
unconsciousness and the neu neu pragmatic examination of it through
objective records left on the net and detailed commentary (meta notes)
on such events along with their classification into general types and
predictable patterns.
(thus serving humanity by exposing rhetoric and hypocrisy for over 5
years; a completely reliable product based on alien (the human in the
mirror) technology. Buy now before supplies multiply into infinity!)
Brandon J. Freels
Andrea Chen wrote
>> "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
>
>
>can tell you it's a restatement of things said thousands of years ago in
>Taoism.
Actually its a restatement of the Greek philosopher Heraclitus.
---BJF
Brandon J. Freels
Brandon J. Freels
Brandon J. Freels
Andrea Chen wrote
> Actually it's the statement of a direct experience (real or imagined,
>emotional and intellectual.) Taoism is a sophisticated exploration of
>this merging into opposites and not (as you dismissed it) simply "nature
>worship."
Brandon:
Show me a Taoist text that supports your statements.
Andrea Chen
>
> There is a simple division between Taoism and Surrealism on this basis in
> that Taoism calls for the interplay of the two yin and yang while Surrealism
> calls for the unity of dream and reality, etc. Unity versus interplay.
This would be the primal chaos which begat the 2 which begat the 3
which begat the 10,000 things. 2 states is the smallest possible to
express difference.
Your assumption is that reality is static which was reflected in your
statements on the unconscious.
It's almost Christmas, I'm feeling generous so I will respond in detail
to your statements.
You asked if the unconscious was a myth. If you mean a story (which
may be true) which helps us understand reality the answer is yes. If
you mean does it exist; the answer is also yes.
1) Functions we can't examine which give us a limited array of "colors"
along with other biological functions which make certain grammars
"natural" and other possible grammars (eg. mathematics) less so and some
impossible. This structure is unconscious; it shapes our thoughts.
It's existence isn't an adequete answer to your question; but it
stresses something very important; that is function and it's
inseaparably nature from content (the medium is the message.) This
differs from the blank slate of extreme behhavioralism (such as that
advocated by orthodox communists) which argued the inner states are
irrelevant.
2) Electrodes inserted in the brain can create "memories" with a sensory
detail ordinarily impossible. There are things down there that we only
partially access if at all. This by itself is proof of an
"unconscious."
3) There is editing. If you are angry at someone you tend to recall the
bad things they did and even the good things become suspect. It's the
opposite if you're in love.
4) There are a number of documented cases of repression (especially of
very stressful events); there is also a rewriting (eg. Reagon was
probably sincere when he recalled liberating a concentration camp.) The
degree and nature of these things is debatable; but one can get an idea
of what's going on by examining the use of hypnosis to recall such
things as incest. Those who deny the validity of this often claim that
there is no such thing as repression. Therefore the "memories" are
created which proves that the unconscious is capable of acting beyond
our conscious control. If one believes that the repression is real;
then the unconscious is blocking away stored things.
NOW TO THE NEXT STEP
(the one you claimed was side stepping)
What is the unconscious?
To this there are many answers.
At the time of the surrealists; the one most availible was Freuds, but
Jung and Adler had already made significant alterations.
You defined the unconscious as a storehouse of repressed memories.
This is is where it became clear you didn't understand.
Repressed memories are not stored, they act!!!
I will repeat this several times.
Lets look at the Freudian mind.
We start with the ID. Me me me! It doesn't separate itself from the
world, it desires pleasure, a ploymorpheous sexuality Eros is the thing
that powers the mind (according to Freud) , the ID is all eros it's
pure mental power (desire).
Now enter reality, the environment; the first manifestation of the
superego. Later this will develop into a part of the self; but for now
lets keep it external.
Mommy doesn't feed baby when he cries; so (because he dislikes pain) he
represses hunger. But the hunger isn't gone; perhaps it manifests
itself as a nervous tic.
Repressed memories (more accurately referred to as repression) aren't
stored they act.
Later baby is internalizing the rules. According to Freud if he's a
boy he wants mommy; he fears daddy. This energy doesn't go away
(according to Freud); it loops back, it reverses itself; the boy rejects
the world of girls; tries to emulate daddy and become like him.
This energy loops fed by the pure eros of ID and controlled by superego
(now strongly internalized) build into more complex patterns. They do
in fact create who we are and controlling, balancing and directing these
forces is the task of ego. These 3 states are largely unconcious though
one can sometimes hear their voice.
Ego is the one which can examine the calls of the self, study the
manifestations and (according to Freud) release destructive energies and
in theory channel them into more productive behaviors.
If you read Freud closely you will notice he admits to failure, he
mentions that his therapy doesn't produce the dream human; but merely
one that can cope; that in fact it makes people flatter.
Now look to Freuds ethical and philosophical bias. He believed in
controls (and only wished to end the really nasty energy loops called
neurosis, circles without purpose, obsessive.)
Then look at the surrealists. They are among the first in a line of
thinkers (including Reich (orgone theory is relevant though it's decades
down the road it's a symbol of the man) on to people like Brown and
Marcuse (who I mentioned earlier)). These people don't want to
control the energies and fit them within a socially approved context.
At their most radical; they want to smash the superego and let the ID
go free. Hurray with ploymorpheus sexuality. Life as a continual
orgy. This is the kind of thought simmering in the twenties and one of
the reasons Freud was so radical.
Now we come to the question. Is the Freudian unconscious a myth (in
the sense of being wrong)? Yes at least to a degree. As a simple
example the Freudian model (remember the steam engine in my earlier
posts) if I express an emotion (lets say anger) enough then the tension
is gone. In point of fact there are observed cases where this
reinforces the behavior (along the lines of behavioralism).
This whole thing is exceedingly complex. In order to begin approaching
it you need to begin define specifics.
Do you start to understand why I said it was impossible to answer "Is
the unconscious a 20th century myth" when you defined it in 19th century
terms?
You really need to understand this stuff if you're going to understand
surrealism and it's relationship to a number of other 20th century
movements and philosophies.
Robert Scott Martin
Andrea Chen <fallin...@earthlink.net> wrote:
>sibject he dares pontificate on). To associate Marx with a fairly
>frequent "mystical" state of mind (also found in the Gospel of Thomas,
>perhaps Doctress Glass would care to provide more?) does indeed blur the
>edges of reality creating this Usenet effect were one can't distinguish
>anything from troll with the very best ones offered in full sincerity so
>the greatest ansurdity we can create is simply to exho and ask our
>question for today:
Those intrigued could stand to read Walter Benjamin, particularly on the
relationship between the Revolution and the Messiah.
The caliban to this ariel is of course the work of the sex pistols.
Revolution isn't about stake meetings and pamphlets falling from the sky.
It's about free love (erotics not politics!) and bread falling from the
sky. No future now!
Herr Marcuse, the Last Hegelian, preached something similar as well, and
if Marx was the prophet and Mao was the sword, Marcuse was the interpreter
bay-bee.
Did Breton read Marcuse? Unlikely except as a ghost reading backwards
(the Angel of History walks backwards), because Marcuse was the darling of
68. However, Andre almost certainly looked at Korenyi's gloss on Hegel --
all them parisian cats did after George B (no not Bush, although the
nihilistic analogy is fecund) showed them the way.
Is it all in Korenyi, master and servant? I think so, but then my love of
incan slave girls and other Edwardian fixations reveals my initiation into
the upstairs/downstairs mind in which Breton & fils were so rooted.
And who is that "fils," the hidden imam, the rightful successor to the
manifestos, the Grand Master of the Order (no, not Robert Matta or even
Satie with his hats)? Only you can tell me that.
> What is the relation of surrealism and Santa Claus?
Naughty Andrea, Santa Claus is a dada figure, not surrealist at all. All
that fur, the shamanistic raiment of the fetish? No surrealist worth his
salts would be caught dead without his necktie (check the graveside
records! Dig them up!).
> (thus serving humanity by exposing rhetoric and hypocrisy for over 5
>years; a completely reliable product based on alien (the human in the
>mirror) technology. Buy now before supplies multiply into infinity!)
Say more about the human in the mirror. You know, they tell me all the
Greys are left-handed, and they live backwards through history. Their
sorrow, of course, is that they grow smaller as they multiply, whereas
here (to cross again is to cross twice, ja?) it's inverse.
this thread ends
barrett john erickson
"Andrea Chen" wrote:
>
> You asked if the unconscious was a myth. If you mean a story (which
> may be true) which helps us understand reality the answer is yes. If
> you mean does it exist; the answer is also yes.
>
> [...]
the problem with the lengthy dissertation that follows is that, contrary to its
claim, it doesn't "prove" (or even make a strong argument for) the existence of the
"unconscious". it merely defines and asserts certain behavior and characteristics of
the human processes as belonging to the "unconscious".
this is unnecessary (and much better "models" now exist).
> Repressed memories are not stored, they act!!!
> [...]
all that follows is anthropomorphism run amuck -- mistaking the metaphor for the
reality.
> Do you start to understand why I said it was impossible to answer "Is
> the unconscious a 20th century myth" when you defined it in 19th century
> terms?
yes. you've provided a wonderful example of someone applying an early 20th century
metaphor to a 19th century cognitive model as viewed through a prism.
>
> You really need to understand this stuff if you're going to understand
> surrealism and it's relationship to a number of other 20th century
> movements and philosophies.
you really need a more current understanding of cognition before you're going to
understand my sig file.
-- barrett
bar...@MagneticFields.org
http://www.MagneticFields.org/
"Everything tends to make us believe that there exists a certain point of the mind at
Stefan Kapusniak
They are the ying to our yang.
In the plenum of their existence they have achieved greater
balance and unity (and thus Qwan) amongst the aspects and
sub-aspects of their existence than we, yet inevitably in
so doing the Cosmos as a whole has become de-stabilised. This
is because the overall unity (and Qwan) of our plenum no longer
balances with theirs.
The Cosmos as a whole moves inevitably towards balance between
our two plenums, as it always has throughout the many cycles
of its existence. In order to prevent their achievements
being brought low in order to right this balance, they must
send messengers and agents to our plenum as both counsellors
and goads, tasked with increasing balance, unity, and Qwan
among the aspects of our existence.
They do this so that it may level upwards to theirs and thus
right the balance of the Cosmos.
-- Kapusniak, Stefan m
barrett john erickson
i think the important point here, Brandon, is that "Andrea" concedes that Breton's
statement on that "certain point of the mind" relates to a matter of direct
experience and need not indicate any connection with Tao, etc.
[this is in my sig file because when i first read it there was an immediate resonance
with _my_ direct experience.]
when such tangents are discovered by explorers, the congruencies are probed for any
insights into the larger project they may provide, for as long as they provide them.
then the larger project is resumed. such has always been the case among surrealists.
however, the recurrence and defense of prolonged diversion from the _surrealist
project_ that we've seen here into areas of belief and mysticism (including, but not
limited to religion) is a clear indication of the degree to which these wanderer's
projects diverge from "surrealism".
Bill Cleere
You *are* a professor! Only a real professor could talk
like that! I knew it! A Professor of Surrealism!
That was lovely, Brandon. Made me feel thirty years
younger, only back then I would want to kick in a wall
when a professor made a comment like that. Now I just
laugh.
There are two ways to encounter these things, folks.
We can take a book and go off with the author on a
journey, wherever he might lead us, and experience
his perspective and insight and, in the case of Hegel,
genius. It's hard work (in the case of Hegel it can
be the work of Sisyphus.)
Or we can grab a few Post-it notes out of the trash bin
of "Intellectual History" and stick 'em on stuff at
random, to avoid having to think.
Becoming good at the latter is what it means to be a
Professor.
Robert Scott Martin
Stefan Kapusniak <stefan...@zetnet.co.uk> wrote:
> The Cosmos as a whole moves inevitably towards balance between
> our two plenums, as it always has throughout the many cycles
> of its existence. In order to prevent their achievements
> being brought low in order to right this balance, they must
> send messengers and agents to our plenum as both counsellors
> and goads, tasked with increasing balance, unity, and Qwan
> among the aspects of our existence.
And also, "some are rising, some are falling."
I am surprised no-one has yet sexed this metaphor. Fort, da, eh?
Barrett:
Is surrealism the kingdom of yes or no?
barrett john erickson
Robert Scott Martin wrote:
> Barrett:
>
> Is surrealism the kingdom of yes or no?
"surrealism" is no kingdom. it is a quest.
Stefan Kapusniak
In alt.pouting.sandwich, gl...@panix.com (Robert Scott Martin) wrote:
>I am surprised no-one has yet sexed this metaphor. Fort, da, eh?
The metaphor, is of course, quite properly hermaphrodite. Of
the additional lower tongue variety, rather than the boredom
of mere superflous penii.
I insist upon this matter most strongly, _particularly_ the
tongue. This has obvious implications for divining the manner
of my latent homosexual tendencies.
-- Kapusniak, Stefan m
Stefan Kapusniak
> I insist upon this matter most strongly, _particularly_ the
> tongue. This has obvious implications for divining the manner
> of my latent homosexual tendencies.
...and also my latent transexual tendencies.
Oh dear, but this isn't a therapy group is it...sorry!
-- Kapusniak, Stefan m
Perceptor
> Is surrealism the kingdom of yes or no?
Speaking only of my self, I came here and saw what a kingdom of "or"
might look like
in the midst of a palace revolt amongst the mandarins about just how
far the peasantry can go in asserting independence and still be
considered patriots.
Stefan Kapusniak
>barrett john erickson wrote:
> How else do we explain Dale's complete embracement of Stefan's
>(satirical but accurate) portrayal of the authoritarian, obedient
>stance?
No.
At least I would be reluctant with attaching the label
'a picture of authoritarianism' to my silly little parody.
It was written as a reductio ad absurdum of how someone
who saw all good/moral/valid action as necessarily being
created with the aim of moving toward a defined goal,
would react to someone who saw goals as things that you
discover in the process of action. Plus a few added
grace notes, based on your story of returning to
alt.society.neutopia and finding everybody describing
you as boring but mentioning you every other word.
More a sort of hyper-'I'm more grown-up and responsible
because I've convinced myself I know the results of what
I'm doing, why are you pretending you don't know what
you're doing?' attitude.
I do admit that I found the moral position I read into
Dale's response to my post where he seemed to say it was
more moral to jolt someone out of accustomed patterns
of thought in order to move them to some other pattern
of thought which you had previously devised, rather than
simply just jolting them, _seriously_ alien.
There are of course moral minefields which every way you
look at _that_ thorny subject, but I would definitely
assign it the other way around.
On the question of authoritarianism I don't think I
have a good model of that way of seeing that the moment.
I have a model of Nazism which I'm fairly happy with,
but the degree into which that shades into less virulent
forms of fascism and that into authoritarianism is
something I'm not at all convinced about.
-- Kapusniak, Stefan m
xepera
when they catch you
they will shove ice pick
up your eye sockets
shut up
Millie Merced
Bill Cleere wrote:
Beside, isn't Heralclits the old guy that took baths in the same water twice?
barrett john erickson
Stefan Kapusniak wrote:
>
> In alt.syntax.tactical, Andrea Chen <fallin...@earthlink.net> wrote:
> >barrett john erickson wrote:
>
> > How else do we explain Dale's complete embracement of Stefan's
> >(satirical but accurate) portrayal of the authoritarian, obedient
> >stance?
please be a bit more careful with your snips. i didn't write the above comment (you
apparently cut the portion of my text that "Andrea" was replying to), and i see no
reason for my name to have appeared in your follow-up at all.
[note: i don't mean to imply you did this deliberately, just request a bit more care
and awareness when it comes to attribution of comments.]
Stefan Kapusniak
In alt.syntax.tactical, barrett john erickson <bar...@skypoint.com> wrote:
>please be a bit more careful with your snips. i didn't write the above
>comment (you apparently cut the portion of my text that "Andrea" was
>replying to), and i see no reason for my name to have appeared in your
>follow-up at all.
Sorry, my apologies.
-- Kapusniak, Stefan m
Perceptor
> strives for the centre, for the Tao, for stability, is because of the ups
> and downs, the opposites, will come and go. They cancel each other out
> over and over again. (This is but one example of how nothing and
> everything are the same thing. They both perish to be replaced by a
> balance.)
>
Hello,
I am not sure if Brandon Or Nik is responsible for the above Quote or if I am
even interpreting it in the sprit they intended.
I just wanted to add a personal perception
of my interpretation of balance in this context.
" the opposites, will come and go. They cancel each other out
over and over again. "
Far from canceling each other out they give life to each other for one can not
exist with out the other. Indeed they are the interpenetrating opposites
necessary to create the energy required for the existence
of a whole.
The concept can be visualized as a black hole that consumes it's self over and
over again to the point of infinite compression and back again.
Here we find ourselves somewhere between being born and dying , traveling in
the Tao
of time.
don.......
Bill Cleere
> you really need a more current understanding of cognition before you're going to
> understand my sig file.
>
> -- barrett
You professors are like kids who've been playing on eight-foot
hoops. You can do all kinds of fancy dunks and beat up on
the junior high kids, but now you've made the mistake of
showing up at the real playground. This one has ten-foot rims
(well, most of 'em are actually nine-and-a-half 'cause
mothafuckas be hangin' on em...)
This is why your shots are not even leaving your hands, man.
You got no game. None whatsoever.
-- Bill Cleere
barrett john erickson
i really have no idea why you bothered to post this, since you say nothing and my
comments were obviously aimed at "Andrea" (who is, after all, the one responsible for
littering which ever group you call home with my presence, as well as alt.surrealism
with yours).
i'd be happy to remove your group from further posts (as i did with previous posts)
if you and your neighbors reciprocate and remove alt.surrealism from your replies.
your playground doesn't interest me.
Bill Cleere
>
> Bill Cleere wrote:
> >
> > barrett john erickson wrote:
> >
> > > you really need a more current understanding of cognition before you're going to
> > > understand my sig file.
> > >
> > > -- barrett
> >
> > You professors are like kids who've been playing on eight-foot
> > hoops. You can do all kinds of fancy dunks and beat up on
> > the junior high kids, but now you've made the mistake of
> > showing up at the real playground. This one has ten-foot rims
> > (well, most of 'em are actually nine-and-a-half 'cause
> > mothafuckas be hangin' on em...)
> >
> > This is why your shots are not even leaving your hands, man.
> > You got no game. None whatsoever.
>
> i really have no idea why you bothered to post this,
Neither do I. It's definitely way too not boring for
this thread.
since you say nothing and my
> comments were obviously aimed at "Andrea" (who is, after all, the one responsible for
> littering which ever group you call home with my presence, as well as alt.surrealism
> with yours).
>
> i'd be happy to remove your group from further posts (as i did with previous posts)
> if you and your neighbors reciprocate and remove alt.surrealism from your replies.
I can't speak for my "neighbors". But I'll remove a.s
all right. What a bore.
>
> your playground doesn't interest me.
>
> -- 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
-- Bill Cleere
Robert Scott Martin
>In article <Sylg2s0K...@zetnet.co.uk>,
>Is surrealism the kingdom of yes or no?
i. both/and -- union of opposites, alchemical (hegelian) fusion
ii. either/or -- the agony of the copula or cross, kierkegaard and silence
[e. neither/nor -- the radically non-extant, frankfurter zero]
iii. [] -- eternal errantry, the road which is always between Rome and
Athens
Thank you. I owe all.
Dale Houstman
> > I do admit that I found the moral position I read into
> >Dale's response to my post where he seemed to say it was
> >more moral to jolt someone out of accustomed patterns
> >of thought in order to move them to some other pattern
> >of thought which you had previously devised, rather than
> >simply just jolting them, _seriously_ alien.
This is probably because you've simplified my (admittedly) vague
statement.
But let's just say that I'm a "serious alien" and leave it at that.
DMH