for xister: why surrealism is not a soft drink but dada is
barrett john erickson
but i'll try just one more time (although the tone of the post i'm
responding to, and its selective amnesia, leads me to suspect a ghost
writer with an agenda) --
the point i keep trying to make and the point you seem unwilling (or
unable) to grasp is not about the specifics of _my_ definitions, or _your_
definitions, or _Breton's_ definitions, or even _history's_ definitions.
the point, as simply as i can put it, is:
you are not inventing the term "surrealism".
surrealism already exists.
surrealists already exist.
the words you are using have historical and current context which exists
beyond your control.
this context cannot be ignored if you expect to be able to communicate
about surrealism with surrealists. this context cannot be ignored if you
expect to communicate about surrealism with non-surrealists who already
know anything about surrealism.
if you ignore this context, the only people you can expect to talk to about
surrealism without eventually repeating this argument are people who are
equally ignorant about surrealism _as it already exists_ -- and you'll only
be able to talk to them until they wise up and learn that you're not
talking about _surrealism_ as it already exists.
[of course, if both of you are intellectually dishonest the conversation
can persist indefinitely, but who would care?]
we can't even get to the stage of arguing about whether you or i have a
more accurate perception of "surrealism" because you seem to insist on
reserving the right to proclaim anything you chose "surrealist".
this is a perfectly acceptable attitude within dada, which had no project
beyond the subversion of the existing order. but it is not an acceptable
attitude within surrealism, which _does_ have a project beyond subversion
(and a history of nearly 80 years of theory, explorations and experiments
which have been directed toward explaining and realizing that project, and
the continuity of a global network of living surrealists still explaining
and pursuing that project).
this is not a matter of "degrees" or "flavors" of surrealism. it is a
matter of accepting the fact that you won't be able to have a meaningful
conversation about the manufacture of soft drinks (to say nothing of
actually producing them in collaboration) if you insist on the right to
proclaim polystyrene a "flavor" of soda whenever the whim strikes you.
if you accept the already-there context for "surrealism" -- that it has
some pre-existing meaning you cannot ignore -- then we can discuss the
specifics of what surrealism is or is not (that is, whether you can say
this activity or that is compatible with that pre-existing meaning).
if you reject the already-there context for "surrealism" -- reject the
pre-existing meaning -- you are clearly _identifying yourself_ as outside
_surrealism as it already exists_, by definition -- not mine, yours.
if you insist on rejecting the already-there context for "surrealism" then
you should simply ignore my attempts to correct your misrepresentations.
i make these efforts for the benefit of those who might want to use the
term as it is used by living surrealists (regardless of whether or not _my_
assessment is accurate -- that is certainly open for challenge by anyone)
and because the surrealist project _as it already exists_ matters to me.
i'm not trying to lay down prescribed rules of surrealist conduct. there
are no "surrealist police" who will descend on you from Paris in the middle
of a nightmare.
and it doesn't matter to me which path _you_ take.
what matters to me is the unending struggle to liberate the imagination and
integrate it into daily living.
this is a project both personal and social; a project which saturates my
being and informs even the most banal of my actions.
-- 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
Andreas Schou
barrett john erickson <bar...@MagneticFields.org> wrote in article
<361F07A6...@MagneticFields.org>...
> this is getting very tiresome ...
>
> but i'll try just one more time (although the tone of the post i'm
> responding to, and its selective amnesia, leads me to suspect a ghost
> writer with an agenda) --
>
>
>
> the point i keep trying to make and the point you seem unwilling (or
> unable) to grasp is not about the specifics of _my_ definitions, or
_your_
> definitions, or _Breton's_ definitions, or even _history's_ definitions.
> the point, as simply as i can put it, is:
> you are not inventing the term "surrealism".
> surrealism already exists.
That's as meaningless a statement as 'Christianity already exists.'
One can argue that the Church still exists; one can argue that the Bible
already exists, but one cannot argue that the definition of the terms, the
interpretation of the ideas, and the dynamic creation of the entity which
is Christianity has ceased.
(No, before the atheistic gangbang descends, I'm not a Christian; it, as a
largely stagnant and long-standing organization, provides a decent example)
> surrealists already exist.
People who claim to be surrealists exist; people who use every conceivable
definition of the word 'surrealist' to back up their claims to surreality.
> the words you are using have historical and current context which exists
> beyond your control.
Words don't mean anything you don't want them to. For instance, I could say
'fuck' and mean a word equivalent to your word 'ostrich'. The fact that my
word meant something utterly different than yours is
What irks me:
The definition of surrealism -- and the control of same -- is what made
Breton such a wholly pathetic man. In essence, history goes like this:
Breton, a charismatic man of no artistic signifance and lesser political
ability, declared many great minds to be 'surrealists'. By so defining,
Breton gained the wholly temporal ability to determine 'what is surreal'
and 'what is not'. He used this ability to pursue his ill-informed attempt
at communism, which boils down to this: 'Hey, Trotsky, Lenin! Wait up! I'm
a communist too! Really!'
In fact, most of the surrealists were only nominal communists. rath Dali
and M
> this context cannot be ignored if you expect to be able to communicate
> about surrealism with surrealists. this context cannot be ignored if you
> expect to communicate about surrealism with non-surrealists who already
> know anything about surrealism.
... and there is No True Scotsman, yes?
X uses the word 'surrealism' in a context other than the one you intend.
Therefore, since someone has used it, they cannot be a surrealist.
The same argument, if put in terms of Scotsmen, goes like this: Angus is
from Scotland. To all reasonable tests, he is -- in fact -- a Scotsman.
However, he puts sugar on his porridge. You arbitrarily assign the quality
'puts sugar on porridge' to be a non-Scotsman quality. Therefore, no one
who puts sugar on porridge could ever possibly be a Scotsman.
... and you've just defined away half of Scotland.
> if you ignore this context, the only people you can expect to talk to
about
> surrealism without eventually repeating this argument are people who are
> equally ignorant about surrealism _as it already exists_ -- and you'll
only
> be able to talk to them until they wise up and learn that you're not
> talking about _surrealism_ as it already exists.
If you don't know anything about the dynamism of meaning, I can't see how
you could possibly agree with the aesthetic fundamentals of surrealism.
Could you explain?
> [of course, if both of you are intellectually dishonest the conversation
> can persist indefinitely, but who would care?]
> we can't even get to the stage of arguing about whether you or i have a
> more accurate perception of "surrealism" because you seem to insist on
> reserving the right to proclaim anything you chose "surrealist".
Congratulations. You have now defined Breton's position on surrealism.
Explain why you find Breton's reasoning to be any more valid than her/his
own, without falling back on the 'Well... it's 80 years old, it *must* be
true!' argument.
> this is a perfectly acceptable attitude within dada, which had no project
> beyond the subversion of the existing order. but it is not an acceptable
> attitude within surrealism, which _does_ have a project beyond subversion
Insofar as Breton defined surrealism. Yes, people of the subset that *you*
agree are surrealists have a mission.
('Acceptable attitude'? That smacks of orthodoxy. And the instant you claim
orthodoxy is the instant I want to distance myself as far away as possible
from your project.)
> and a history of nearly 80 years of theory, explorations and experiments
> which have been directed toward explaining and realizing that project,
and
> the continuity of a global network of living surrealists still explaining
> and pursuing that project).
The fact that you have been wrong for an extrordinarily long period of time
does not make you any less wrong.
Christianity has been wrong for 1,998 years and shows few signs of
changing. 80 years of being wrong is only a drop in the bucket, as far as
horrendous, ugly mistakes go.
Rather, I suggest that this is the problem with both: that, although both
have some extrordinarily good ideas, *neither are perfect*; restricting to
the orthodox and automatically condemning the 'heretical', leaves you with
only old, dead ideas; wrongness so ingrained that it is nigh upon
impossible to beat the wheat, as it were, from the chaff.
> this is not a matter of "degrees" or "flavors" of surrealism. it is a
> matter of accepting the fact that you won't be able to have a meaningful
> conversation about the manufacture of soft drinks (to say nothing of
> actually producing them in collaboration) if you insist on the right to
> proclaim polystyrene a "flavor" of soda whenever the whim strikes you.
I will indeed, the instant we come to an agreement on a term we can use for
'soda'. I don't have to come to meet him at his definition, and he doesn't
have to meet me at mine.
The entire premise of language is that it provides a somewhat reasonable
set of terms and patterns whereby one can establish conversation with
another person. The sets of 'what words mean' are not entirely compatible;
in some areas, they are as individual as the personal mythology.
Talk to a Southern Baptist and an atheist about the definition of 'cult'.
You will come up with two entirely different definitions of the word.
> if you accept the already-there context for "surrealism" -- that it has
> some pre-existing meaning you cannot ignore -- then we can discuss the
> specifics of what surrealism is or is not (that is, whether you can say
> this activity or that is compatible with that pre-existing meaning)
Right. Sure. I'll hand over my ability to color outside the lines, Pope
Dali the Third, by giving you the right to define the terms.
So: essentially, you're restricting the creative ability of surrealism to
the ability to sort things down into finer and finer categories, to make an
asympotic approach to 'True Surrealism'?
> if you reject the already-there context for "surrealism" -- reject the
> pre-existing meaning -- you are clearly _identifying yourself_ as outside
> _surrealism as it already exists_, by definition -- not mine, yours.
Catholics declared that Martin Luther was no longer Christian because he
defied the Church.
He claimed he was.
*Now* who has the right definition?
> if you insist on rejecting the already-there context for "surrealism"
then
> you should simply ignore my attempts to correct your misrepresentations.
Definition is dynamic.
> i make these efforts for the benefit of those who might want to use the
> term as it is used by living surrealists (regardless of whether or not
_my_
> assessment is accurate -- that is certainly open for challenge by anyone)
> and because the surrealist project _as it already exists_ matters to me.
This is my essential argument with your position: it is as circular an
argument as one could conceive.
1) I define surrealists as X.
2) Surrealists (definition presupposed as 'people who define themselves as
X') define themselves as X.
3) Therefore, according to the definition of people who already accept the
definition, surrealists are X.
The fact that there are multiple possible groups who define themselves as
'only true surrealists' has entirely escaped your Ourobouran reasoning. For
instance, if I take the group 'people who define themselves as surrealists
who do not accept definition X', I may or may not receive a larger number
of actual people than your definition.
xister
and found Andreas' post, and all I'm gonna say is: ""Yeah! What he
said!"
--
Reply (sans hyphen) to the x-i...@earthlink.net
Things are going to slide, slide in all directions
Won't be nothin' you can measure anymore
The Blizzard of the world has crossed the threshold
and it's overturned the order of the soul...
When they said, "Repent!" I wondered what they meant.
I've seen the future brother, it is murder...
-LEONARD COHEN-
Brandon J. Freels
<01bdf483$fc370800$02ed...@pippin.isu.edu>...
>Words don't mean anything you don't want them to. For instance, I could say
>'fuck' and mean a word equivalent to your word 'ostrich'. The fact that my
>word meant something utterly different than yours is
Brandon: You sound like a Greek Skeptic. When you feel your hungry how do
you know your really hungry? That feeling you have might actually mean you
need to use the bathroom, or that your sexual excited (etc.). Feeling don't
mean anything you don't want them to. For instance, I could define my
feeling as "happy" and really feel "sad." (etc.).
>The definition of surrealism -- and the control of same -- is what made
>Breton such a wholly pathetic man.
Brandon: The definition of surrealism is always changing. All we are doing
here is debating the changes. Pro or con. Subgroups of the original
definition are bound to happen (at least in the U.S. with this aweful
capatalist society).
>In fact, most of the surrealists were only nominal communists. rath Dali
>and M
B: Yes sir! Pope Dali was an admirer of Hitler. Who is this "M"?
>Christianity has been wrong for 1,998 years and shows few signs of
>changing.
B: Christianity will always be wrong, but it has "changed" since it came on
to the scene (at least something leads me to believe it has). For example,
southern Baptist christians are in no way similar to Christians living in
the middle east (and that's today just think how different they are from
Roman Christians!).
>Talk to a Southern Baptist and an atheist about the definition of 'cult'.
>You will come up with two entirely different definitions of the word.
B: The atheist would claim a cult to be a group of fools. The Southern
Baptist would claim a cult to be a bunch of people with snakes jumping
around in a barn.
>Right. Sure. I'll hand over my ability to color outside the lines, Pope
>Dali the Third, by giving you the right to define the terms.
B: Surrealism (here is my definition) has to do with the scribbles you make
inside the lines. Once you go outside of the lines you are in Dada
territory.
>Catholics declared that Martin Luther was no longer Christian because he
>defied the Church.
B: Catholics declared Martin Luther was no longer a "Catholic" because he
defied the Church. I would hate to admit that I have an admiration for
Martin Luther. His obsession with bowel movements is a wonderful example
excremental love.
>The fact that there are multiple possible groups who define themselves as
>'only true surrealists' has entirely escaped your Ourobouran reasoning. For
>instance, if I take the group 'people who define themselves as surrealists
>who do not accept definition X', I may or may not receive a larger number
>of actual people than your definition.
B: Again this is because most people in are culture, as I have discussed
with Nik on another post, are complete idiots.
barrett john erickson
clearer, yet Andreas Schou (and xister in "what he said") still haven't
come close to understanding what i'm trying to get across.
the only thing that occured to me to try after reading these responses was
this:
what is it you (Andreas and xister) are doing when you use the word
surrealism?
are you just making noise? in which case i'll happily ignore it.
or are you actually trying to communicate some concept to someone else?
i'm not asking you what you think "surrealism" is, i'm asking you if you
use the word in an attempt to communicate.
you really do seem to be arguing that words have no meaning beyond the
individual who uses them. this is just bullshit. any word you haven't
made up yourself has some meaning for others. language isn't just making
noise.
confirming your total misunderstanding you said:
"One can argue that the Church still exists; one can argue that the Bible
already exists, but one cannot argue that the definition of the terms, the
interpretation of the ideas, and the dynamic creation of the entity which
is Christianity has ceased."
does this mean everyone can decide for themselves what christianity is?
can i say it means that jesus christ was mary's pet porcupine who would
morph into an evil magician and mutilate millions with the phasers given to
him by his cousin teddy who lived on jupiter, and expect christians to
recognize my right to do so and my right to call myself a christian?
i just can't see how i could say it any plainer than i have but i'll risk
using your own words in a final attempt to make you understand: in this
analogy of yours _surrealism is not the church, it is christianity_ (shit,
that put a foul taste in my mouth).
no matter how much you seem to want to, you cannot "argue that the
definition of the terms, the interpretation of ideas and the dynamic
creation of the entity which is [surrealism] has ceased" so that you can
begin with a clean slate (or even two slates and a burning bush).
Andreas Schou
Brandon J. Freels <Fre...@ethergate.com> wrote in article
<Wc9U1.291$ew6....@news.eli.net>...
> Andreas Schou wrote in message
> <01bdf483$fc370800$02ed...@pippin.isu.edu>...
> >Words don't mean anything you don't want them to. For instance, I could
say
> >'fuck' and mean a word equivalent to your word 'ostrich'. The fact that
my
> >word meant something utterly different than yours is
> Brandon: You sound like a Greek Skeptic. When you feel your hungry how do
> you know your really hungry? That feeling you have might actually mean
you
> need to use the bathroom, or that your sexual excited (etc.). Feeling
don't
> mean anything you don't want them to. For instance, I could define my
> feeling as "happy" and really feel "sad." (etc.).
Actually, I'd take that -- within reason -- to be a compliment.
However, you don't seem to have responded to the argument. =)
Er. Take this:
There are two languages that are, within all categories, utterly dissimilar
-- except for one word. Let's call this word 'surrealism'.
Now, when one language uses the word 'surrealism', they mean a small kind
of fruit excreted by Y(HVH)R FATHER.
When the other language uses the word 'surrealism', they are referring to a
wholly satisfying kind of dish soap.
The claim that either language's definition of 'surrealism' is wrong is
ridiculous.
> >The definition of surrealism -- and the control of same -- is what made
> >Breton such a wholly pathetic man.
>
> Brandon: The definition of surrealism is always changing. All we are
doing
> here is debating the changes. Pro or con. Subgroups of the original
> definition are bound to happen (at least in the U.S. with this aweful
> capatalist society).
Being an anarchist myself (and thus admittedly quite dada), I'd have to
agree. However, making reference to another post of yours,
> >In fact, most of the surrealists were only nominal communists. Both Dali
> >and M(agritte) expressed doubts -- in print -- about Breton's
qualifications in > > >defining surrealism.
>
> B: Yes sir! Pope Dali was an admirer of Hitler. Who is this "M"?
Er. Magritte. I was finishing this post in pieces and simply forgot to
complete that one.
As for 'admiring Hitler', I'd have
> >Christianity has been wrong for 1,998 years and shows few signs of
> >changing.
>
> B: Christianity will always be wrong, but it has "changed" since it came
on
> to the scene (at least something leads me to believe it has). For
example,
> southern Baptist christians are in no way similar to Christians living in
> the middle east (and that's today just think how different they are from
> Roman Christians!).
To clarify: Christianity shows few signs of changing its wrongness. The
fact that a group has been wrong for any length of time does not make it
any less wrong.
> >Talk to a Southern Baptist and an atheist about the definition of
'cult'.
> >You will come up with two entirely different definitions of the word.
> B: The atheist would claim a cult to be a group of fools. The Southern
> Baptist would claim a cult to be a bunch of people with snakes jumping
> around in a barn.
Which, admittedly, is quite a dada act in and of itself.
Too bad it's not dada.
> >Right. Sure. I'll hand over my ability to color outside the lines, Pope
> >Dali the Third, by giving you the right to define the terms.
> B: Surrealism (here is my definition) has to do with the scribbles you
make
> inside the lines. Once you go outside of the lines you are in Dada
> territory.
So. Surrealism is a subset of dada?
I'd disagree. After fully incorporating Freud and Jung, surrealism became
something quite different than dada (which is quite a diverse term; after
all, it incorporated both Tzara and Magritte, didn't it?).
> >Catholics declared that Martin Luther was no longer Christian because he
> >defied the Church.
>
>
> B: Catholics declared Martin Luther was no longer a "Catholic" because he
> defied the Church. I would hate to admit that I have an admiration for
> Martin Luther. His obsession with bowel movements is a wonderful example
> excremental love.
That was supposed to be an analgoy: By stiffening the definition and
declaring xister 'apostate', you're doing the exact same thing.
> >The fact that there are multiple possible groups who define themselves
as
> >'only true surrealists' has entirely escaped your Ourobouran reasoning.
For
> >instance, if I take the group 'people who define themselves as
surrealists
> >who do not accept definition X', I may or may not receive a larger
number
> >of actual people than your definition.
> B: Again this is because most people in are culture, as I have discussed
> with Nik on another post, are complete idiots.
Er. Then you'd consider the only valid way to measure some 'surreal
quotient' to be your own personal ability to judge them surreal?
-- Andreas.
Brandon J. Freels
Andreas Schou wrote in message
>Actually, I'd take that -- within reason -- to be a compliment.
B: I wasn't try to do otherwise. But this whole idea of defining things all
drives back to the fifth century bce with the Greek Skeptics who said that
no one is ever right and its useless to say someone is.
>However, you don't seem to have responded to the argument. =)
B: I never respond to arguments.
>As for 'admiring Hitler', I'd have
B: Now you would have, but back then you might not have for reasons beyond
your own control. I don't admire Hitler because he was a bafoon. His
speeches were very entertaining, but he was an idiot, so... I guess the only
thing you're really admiring is his power.
>To clarify: Christianity shows few signs of changing its wrongness. The
>fact that a group has been wrong for any length of time does not make it
>any less wrong.
B: Everything is wrong, always, if you've agreed with the above (i.e. Greek
Skepticism). Even Surrealism. Even Dada. Even Christianity. Even the Sub
Genius.
>So. Surrealism is a subset of dada?
>I'd disagree. After fully incorporating Freud and Jung, surrealism became
>something quite different than dada (which is quite a diverse term; after
>all, it incorporated both Tzara and Magritte, didn't it?).
B: Magritte was never a dadaist. He didn't even come around until 1926 and
before then he was doing cubist crap (which is really rather bad). Dada and
Surrealism are both based on a type of freedom, but Surrealism's is
completely internal, while Dada's is external (make sense?). This is only my
working definition of the two so I won't say I'm correct (it will always be
working). The only snag I come across is the idea of destruction in Dada vs.
the lack of destruction in Surrealism. To say Surrealism is a subset is
wrong because Surrealism didn't come out of Dada, but was discovered through
Dada (i.e. it already existed before Dada and exists today after Dada). Its
like this, forgive me for refering to art history but, all these art
movements before Dada were based on the external and eventually it all blew
up in the artist's face (Dada), and after the nucleur explosion all that was
left was a man standing naked in the middle of a desert. He had no were to
look but inside (Surrealism). Forgive me for using a medaphor (I think I
did).
>Er. Then you'd consider the only valid way to measure some 'surreal
>quotient' to be your own personal ability to judge them surreal?
B: Isn't this what we all do?
Brandon J. Freels
barrett john erickson wrote: "what is it you (Andreas and xister) are doing
when you use the word surrealism? are you just making noise? or are you
actually trying to communicate some concept to someone else?"
Brandon: I am curious also. What are you doing Andreas and non-xister? I
think this is a very valid question.
Barrett continued: "i'm not asking you what you think "surrealism" is, i'm
asking you if you use the word in an attempt to communicate."
Brandon: "Again Barrett makes a good point. I don't see any other reason to
use the word surrealism for any other reason than surrealism. When I go to
the grocery store I don't pick up a carton of milk and say "surrealism!" Nor
do I, after picking up the milk, read Breton's Manifesto's and expect them
to be about milk. Another grocery store example is something like this: I go
get an apple for 50 cents. I notice that oranges are 25 cents. So when I get
the cashier with my apple and they charge me 50 cents I argue that its 25
cents because I define it as an orange."
Barret goes on: "does this mean everyone can decide for themselves what
christianity is?"
Brandon: "I knew a girl once who believed Christ was God, but said she
wasn't a Christian. I debated with her that she was a Christian weither she
liked the idea or not, and she should just shut up about it and accept her
stupidity. She got made at me and never spoke to me again."
Brandon J. Freels
I walk into a musuem and tell them "take me to the surrealist!" The lead me
to a giant room filled with paintings of Renior, Monet, etc.
I walk into the library and look up "surrealism" on the catalog. It leads me
to books about the spanish inquisition, and farming.
I walk into the videostore and ask the manager if he has any french
surrealist films. He shows me a picture of Eddy Murphy.
What's the point? If everyone defines things on their own turf I will never
get to see what I consider surreal.
My mother walks out of the bathroom and tells me she had the most surreal
bowel movement. I ask her what was so surreal about it. She tells me she saw
God.
If all these people have all these diverse definitions of surrealism than
why even define anything.
I write a phrase:
A dog eats cheese on my porch
someone else might read that as:
my ass is checkered into hell
Depending on their own definition of the words they could make my words mean
anything. Just think of all the things they could think non-xister and
Audreas are saying. If we chose our own definitions we will never move.
---BJF
xister
xister
barrett john erickson wrote:
> having reread my original post, i just can't see how i could've been
> clearer, yet Andreas Schou (and xister in "what he said") still haven't
> come close to understanding what i'm trying to get across.
Understand? Yes... Agree? No.... (besides, "what he said" was just for fun)
> what is it you (Andreas and xister) are doing when you use the word
> surrealism?
> i'm not asking you what you think "surrealism" is, i'm asking you if you
> use the word in an attempt to communicate.
>
> you really do seem to be arguing that words have no meaning beyond the
> individual who uses them. this is just bullshit. any word you haven't
> made up yourself has some meaning for others.
This is sort of an aside to the whole argument, but yes on the whole, we only
vaguely agree on the definition of any given word.
> language isn't just making noise.
Language is arbitrary... Words only have arbitrary meanings, and a concept as
complex as surrealism is even more so than the definition of an object.
Everyone knows what an apple is, and why do we call it that? Because the
concept of the almost round, red (sometimes green) thing that grows from trees
was given that name so long ago. What do they call an apple in France (pomme, I
believe?) It certainly isn't what the English call it. We describe most apples
taste/looks/texture in just about all the same way, but the experience- the
concept- of eating an apple right down to shitting it out the other end, is a
personal one and cannot be shared except in the realm of words. In that sense,
surrealism has a different meaning to you than to me. You can tell me that one
of the ideals of the concept of the surrealist project is liberation of the
mind, but can you tell me exactly how to go about doing that? What works for
you may not work for me. Why? Because everyone is obviously different.
> confirming your total misunderstanding you said:
>
> "One can argue that the Church still exists; one can argue that the Bible
> already exists, but one cannot argue that the definition of the terms, the
> interpretation of the ideas, and the dynamic creation of the entity which
> is Christianity has ceased."
On the whole, I'm not really arguing validity of what is surreal or not
surreal, or what is surrealiy/what's not, but rather, that the shared reality
that is surrealism looks different from every point of view. To use the apple
analogy further: Perhaps one person thinks the core is the important aspect of
an apple, because its the center- the axis, and where the seeds are. Perhaps
another thinks that the pulp around the core is most important because its the
nourishing, edible part. So you have two people that have different opinions of
the same concept of an apple. Who is right? Who is to say who is right? The one
that has eaten more apples? The one who has seen more apples? Perhaps it's the
one that dissects apples for a living. I'd bet that the pro-core person thinks
that the pulp is still a valid part of the apple and vice-versa with the other
person. (this analogy only works for this exact point and that's all it's
intended for)
The people that embody the concepts of surrealism (after all, it exists nowhere
else but in our minds) and those who aspire towards the concept of surrealism
change it, simply because they're humans and they constantly change. But- one
person's view of surreality (past or present) has no more or less validity
than another's, and the way I see it, people have to experiment with different
concepts in their own lives to see what works for them. We can only agree on
vague concepts of what surrealism is. Why? Because everyone has a different
opinion as to what surrealism is, and if they didn't, then we'd all be thinking
the same, and when everyone thinks alike, nobody thinks much at all.
>
>
> does this mean everyone can decide for themselves what christianity is?
> can i say it means that jesus christ was mary's pet porcupine who would
> morph into an evil magician and mutilate millions with the phasers given to
> him by his cousin teddy who lived on jupiter, and expect christians to
> recognize my right to do so and my right to call myself a christian?
If that's what you so desire... Granted, you may not have many people agree
with you, but- who am I (or anyone else for that matter) to tell you that that
concept doesn't work for *you*? (besides, the whole morphing and mutilating
part doesn't sound far from what they *do* believe.)
> i just can't see how i could say it any plainer than i have but i'll risk
> using your own words in a final attempt to make you understand: in this
> analogy of yours _surrealism is not the church, it is christianity_ (shit,
> that put a foul taste in my mouth).
(heh) yeah, that would've left a bad taste in my mouth too...
> no matter how much you seem to want to, you cannot "argue that the
> definition of the terms, the interpretation of ideas and the dynamic
> creation of the entity which is [surrealism] has ceased"
But I'm not saying that the concepts of surrealism has ceased or should cease
(just that they should keep evolving). What I'm saying is that everyone sees it
differently and we can only agree on what it is to a certain point- the rest (I
dare say, the lion's share) is personal. And in that context, something that
you deem surreal, might not be to me and vice-versa.
And Barrett, I answer your questions, I'd appreciate it if you would not
sidestep so many of mine...
Clayton Francis
some NEW advances in freeing the imagination and dreams. Unfortunately,
this is not so: instead you revert back to the good old days of dada in
which you provoke and mock. I want to delve into the contempory world of
ideals and unleash the potent force of imagination. Please stop writing
crap, and start interacting with new ideas and notions of reality in
context to the broad sweeping plain that is the mind!
barrett john erickson
i'm not sure if this was launched in my direction or not, but as i agree
entirely with the spirit of your post, i feel the need to note that while
the discussions i've recently engaged certainly haven't been on the
threshold of revelation, they _have been necessary_ to clarify some
fundamental positions (and oppositions).
a bit more specifically:
as someone who also wishes this space could serve as a forum for the
discussion of surrealist exploration beyond current known territory, there
was ample evidence that only a few people here were heading in directions
which might be catalytic to _my_ explorations, while others were moving in
opposite directions, and still others were moving nowhere because they had
the spirit of destruction but not the passion for exploration and
theoretical expansion.
recent dialog has been an exercise in clarifying those distinctions.
so, having said that, it's easy and relatively common (and certainly
justified) for a new arrival to be appalled at the emptiness of a place as
busy as this has been recently. it's more difficult for that new arrival
to commit to helping alt.surrealism evolve in more interesting ways.
many interesting people have abandoned this space due to its numbing
banality (when viewed in total, rather than with discrimination). and
while i've made many contacts here which i still value and maintain, there
have been no concerted efforts to periodically nudge alt.surrealism into an
area of exploration.
why? the pace of evolution too slow for most, the ignorant (and i use that
term in a neutral sense, not as judgement) too insufferable for others.
again, there are some hopefull signs right now.
but cultivation is needed and seedlings tended.
personally, i'd like to see us take the spirit of the Breton quote in my
sig and actually work on it, find and highlight the congruences on
traditional surrealist themes which are to be found in nearly every field
of human endeavor today, reconcile the false dichotomies and resolve the
ripe dialectics extending them theoretically via experimental action into a
more universal surrealist perspective on _our times_.
Andreas Schou
Brandon J. Freels wrote:
> I'm going to take another stab at this:
>
> I walk into a musuem and tell them "take me to the surrealist!" The lead me
> to a giant room filled with paintings of Renior, Monet, etc.
If I walk into a museum and tell them "take me to the surrealist!", they --
likelier than not -- would take me directly to Dali.
The amusing thing is that, under your definition, Dali was not a surrealist.
In the dictionary, 'surrealism' is defined as:
A movement in literature and visual arts that developed in the mid-120s and
remained strong until the mid-1940s. Based upon revealing the unconscious mind
in dream images, the irrationa, and the fantastic .... The paintings of Dali and
Magritte, with their uses of impossible combinations of objects depicted in
realistic detail, typify representational surrealism.
One would assume that the dictionary definition is the most commonly accepted. A
few moments pass. I glance at my art history book -- which, presumably, is the
most 'enlightened' defintion.
I find: three paragraphs on Dali. Three paragraphs on Magritte. Two paragraphs
on Miro. Zero (0) mentions of Andre Breton. Zero (0) uses of the word
'communism' within the context of surrealism.
> I walk into the library and look up "surrealism" on the catalog. It leads me
> to books about the spanish inquisition, and farming.
It leads you to Salvador Dali and Andre Breton. One of these, under your
defintion, is not a surreaslist.
> I walk into the videostore and ask the manager if he has any french
> surrealist films. He shows me a picture of Eddy Murphy.
Likely, you get Chien Andalou. Salvador Dali. Not A Surrealist (tm).
>
>
> What's the point? If everyone defines things on their own turf I will never
> get to see what I consider surreal.
>
Good. If you would like to see what you consider surreal, read Andre Breton.
Follow his pretentious definitions of 'what is surreal'. Do not simply expect
the rest of the universe to abide by his pathetic demagoguery.
Furthermore: do not quote him in an attempt to prove your point. One does not
quote the Bible to prove one's point to atheists; why quote Breton in an attempt
to prove your point to people who fundamentally disagree with him?
> My mother walks out of the bathroom and tells me she had the most surreal
> bowel movement. I ask her what was so surreal about it. She tells me she saw
> God.
>
> If all these people have all these diverse definitions of surrealism than
> why even define anything.
>
> I write a phrase:
>
> A dog eats cheese on my porch
>
> someone else might read that as:
>
> my ass is checkered into hell
>
> Depending on their own definition of the words they could make my words mean
> anything. Just think of all the things they could think non-xister and
> Audreas are saying. If we chose our own definitions we will never move.
If I can get somebody to agree with my definitions of those phrases, we are
communicating. If I can get somebody to even understand what I mean by those
phrases, I am communicating. As I said earlier: you know what I am talking
about. You understand what English is; presumably, I'm speaking it.
I've provided a definition for you, using standard definitions of words you
understand. Unless you are illiterate or stupid -- and you're obviously neither
-- you understand what I mean. However, in an attempt to shore up your faltering
arguments, you claim ignorance. That is not a valid defense.
>
> ---BJF
Andreas Schou
barrett john erickson wrote:
> having reread my original post, i just can't see how i could've been
> clearer, yet Andreas Schou (and xister in "what he said") still haven't
> come close to understanding what i'm trying to get across.
Fact: xister and I do not agree with you.
It does not follow that 'xister and I do not understand what you're talking
about'. The obvious conclusion is that, despite your protestations, I still
believe that you are wrong.
>
> the only thing that occured to me to try after reading these responses was
> this:
>
> what is it you (Andreas and xister) are doing when you use the word
> surrealism?
>
> are you just making noise? in which case i'll happily ignore it.
I'm making a meatnoise when I say 'surrealism'. I intend to mean something by
it, and you pick up that meaning, but you choose to ignore it utterly -- as is
evident in the content of this post.
> or are you actually trying to communicate some concept to someone else?
Yes. I'm using the word 'surrealism' to communicate to you a concept.
I have explained my definition. I have provided the reasons behind my
definition. And -- even prior to my provision of a definition -- you seem to
have understood what I meant by the word.
It is an act of profound intellectual dishonesty to claim that 'I don't know
what you're talking about' after you've attempted to refute the arguments
provided in the previous post (and snipped those arguments which you could
not).
> i'm not asking you what you think "surrealism" is, i'm asking you if you
> use the word in an attempt to communicate.
>
> you really do seem to be arguing that words have no meaning beyond the
> individual who uses them. this is just bullshit. any word you haven't
> made up yourself has some meaning for others. language isn't just making
> noise.
Language is just making noise. The process of 'language' does not exist outside
the brain; the fact that we assign arbitrary meatnoises to concepts in the
'real world' is utterly irrelevant to the concepts themselves.
> confirming your total misunderstanding you said:
Ad hominiem, Barrett m'boy.
> "One can argue that the Church still exists; one can argue that the Bible
> already exists, but one cannot argue that the definition of the terms, the
> interpretation of the ideas, and the dynamic creation of the entity which
> is Christianity has ceased."
>
> does this mean everyone can decide for themselves what christianity is?
> can i say it means that jesus christ was mary's pet porcupine who would
> morph into an evil magician and mutilate millions with the phasers given to
> him by his cousin teddy who lived on jupiter, and expect christians to
> recognize my right to do so and my right to call myself a christian?
>
Would you expect that a Christian who believed such would accept the Pope's
authority to excommunicate him from his own religion?
> i just can't see how i could say it any plainer than i have but i'll risk
> using your own words in a final attempt to make you understand: in this
> analogy of yours _surrealism is not the church, it is christianity_ (shit,
> that put a foul taste in my mouth).
>
> no matter how much you seem to want to, you cannot "argue that the
> definition of the terms, the interpretation of ideas and the dynamic
> creation of the entity which is [surrealism] has ceased" so that you can
> begin with a clean slate (or even two slates and a burning bush).
Buh.
In a stunning move, Pope Jean-Paul the Second excommunicated the entire
Lutheran Church.
You don't understand my position: I will let you have your definition of
surrealism. I will make no attempt to dissuade you from that definition; after
all, owning the definition gives you the same sway over the 'surrealism' as
Breton's ownership did. However: As long as you understand what I'm talking
about, *any* definition is a valid definition. All I'm doing is changing the
meaning of the 'surrealism' meatnoise and using other compatible meatnoises to
explain to you what the new 'surrealism' meatnoise means... and it's not
altogether different from *your* meatnoise, either.
Further: I expect that there are very few people outside your clique of 'True
Surrealists!!!1!!!' that would not understand what I meant when I used the
word. The dictionary says I'm right. My art history book agrees with me. To
whom am I supposed to turn for a definition, then?
Brandon J. Freels
---BJF
Brandon J. Freels
Andreas Schou wrote in message <362211F1...@cwis.isu.edu>...
>If I walk into a museum and tell them "take me to the surrealist!", they --
>likelier than not -- would take me directly to Dali.
Brandon: Not if the musuem defined Surrealism as Impressionism.
>I find: three paragraphs on Dali. Three paragraphs on Magritte. Two
paragraphs
>on Miro. Zero (0) mentions of Andre Breton. Zero (0) uses of the word
>'communism' within the context of surrealism.
Brandon: Why use an Art History book. Surrealism has nothing to do with Art
History. If you claim it does you are limiting its use. If you read Nadaeu's
History of Surrealism it is quite the opposite of your Art History book.
>It leads you to Salvador Dali and Andre Breton. One of these, under your
>defintion, is not a surreaslist.
Brandon: Actually I was saying that the library defined the word Surrealism
as the Spanish inquisition, or farming.
>Likely, you get Chien Andalou. Salvador Dali. Not A Surrealist (tm).
Brandon: NO. Not if the videostore defines Surrealism as Beverly Hills Cop.
>Furthermore: do not quote him in an attempt to prove your point. One does
not
>quote the Bible to prove one's point to atheists; why quote Breton in an
attempt
>to prove your point to people who fundamentally disagree with him?
Brandon: I've neve quoted Breton to you. What's your problem. What do you
have against Breton and for Dali?
>If I can get somebody to agree with my definitions of those phrases, we
are
>communicating. If I can get somebody to even understand what I mean by
those
>phrases, I am communicating. As I said earlier: you know what I am talking
>about. You understand what English is; presumably, I'm speaking it.
Brandon: All my English words mean something different than yours. I've had
no idea what you've been saying all along. This has nothing to do with
ignorance, but with a point that redefining things can be a hard thing to do
and lead to many unwanted consequences. Freedom of definition in
intellectual conversation is out of bounds. Freedom of definition is a
surrealist tool, but only in documentation of something.
Here is how I unconsciously define:
Cat: a frog on a broomstick
Car: a man on a giant insect
Mother: the concrete of a used of sandwich
Etc.
---BJF
barrett john erickson
> One would assume that the dictionary definition is the most commonly accepted. A
> few moments pass. I glance at my art history book -- which, presumably, is the
> most 'enlightened' defintion.
not among surrealists.
among surrealists both definitions you quote are laughable in their
ignorance. especially in "alt.surrealism", one should be able to expect
the perspective of surrealists to decide the matter.
"and who are the surrealists?" i hear you asking.
they are those who have understood and committed themselves to the
surrealist project as it has been theoretically explored, witnessed and
collectively practiced -- not as a "school" or a "style" or a "club" or a
"set of rules" but as the intuitive recognition of a fundamental life
imperative. they are those who have internalized and _extended_ (not
contradicted and reversed) this project in freshly discovered fields of
investigation as well as along existing trajectories toward the marvelous
begun by fallen colleagues.
and they don't have to know anything about "literature and visual arts" to
do so.
barrett john erickson
>
> barrett john erickson wrote:
> > you really do seem to be arguing that words have no meaning beyond the
> > individual who uses them. this is just bullshit. any word you haven't
> > made up yourself has some meaning for others.
>
> This is sort of an aside to the whole argument, but yes on the whole, we only
> vaguely agree on the definition of any given word.
this is why i keep saying you're not understanding the point i'm trying to
make.
this isn't an "aside" to the whole argument -- this has become the very
center of my probe to find and resolve the core of our disagreement.
granted, the discussion began on a level of definition, but quickly became
(for me) about _how you are using the words_ (regardless of what they may
mean to you or i).
> > language isn't just making noise.
>
> Language is arbitrary...
which confirms my conclusion, and the impassable canyon. i have been
arguing that, while the words are arbitrary, language and communication are
about finding a shared foundation for meaningful discourse.
but i couldn't resist one more example ...
> Words only have arbitrary meanings, and a concept as
> complex as surrealism is even more so than the definition of an object.
> Everyone knows what an apple is, and why do we call it that? Because the
> concept of the almost round, red (sometimes green) thing that grows from trees
> was given that name so long ago. What do they call an apple in France (pomme, I
> believe?) It certainly isn't what the English call it. We describe most apples
> taste/looks/texture in just about all the same way, but the experience- the
> concept- of eating an apple right down to shitting it out the other end, is a
> personal one and cannot be shared except in the realm of words. In that sense,
> surrealism has a different meaning to you than to me.
so... you're saying that the fruit is different because _you_ ate it as
opposed to a frenchman and you call it "apple" and he calls it "pomme"? or
that your metabolism extracts and makes use of different nutrients than
his? or that your digestive process is different than his?
would this same fruit i look at be different if _you_ called it a "grape"?
the entity we call "apple" and the frenchman calls "pomme" has a shared
reality that you cannot control arbitrarily. your argument has not been
about you calling it one thing and me another (you're not proposing to call
surrealism "bretonism"), its more like you saying that when you ask for an
"apple" you really want people to hand you pointed stick.
[an exaggeration to make a point. actually it's more like you want them to
hand you what most of us would call a "pear" -- something close but not
quite the same as the socially accepted usage. and in this analogy the
"social" entity refers to the community of surrealists, since they created
the terminology.]
what i keep seeing in your analogies is that we have very different
concepts of the process surrealism is, and we can't discuss those
differences because you don't quite accept that it _is_ something (and
therefore _is not_ something else) in the realm of shared reality.
> And Barrett, I answer your questions, I'd appreciate it if you would not
> sidestep so many of mine...
i do so in the intrest of brevity, not dismissal, since our
misunderstanding is on a level so fundamental that i can't engage the
substance of your questions without either endlessly repeating myself in
variations on the theme: "no, that's not the issue i'm trying to resolve"
or getting your perpetual response of "that's not what surrealism is to
me".
and i don't mean that in a derrogatory way, it just appears we've reached
an impasse in this thread.
Andreas Schou
Brandon J. Freels wrote:
<Misunderstanding of a misunderstanding -- (sorry, Brandon) -- snipped. Such are
the vagaries of print media. =P>
I now understand the point you were making -- which is entirely different from
the point I was arguing.
Er: the point I was *trying* to make is that I had produced a definition that
was reasonably compatible with your definition; one that didn't require giving
you an entire lesson in my own personal mythology.
> >I find: three paragraphs on Dali. Three paragraphs on Magritte. Two
> paragraphs
> >on Miro. Zero (0) mentions of Andre Breton. Zero (0) uses of the word
> >'communism' within the context of surrealism.
>
> Brandon: Why use an Art History book. Surrealism has nothing to do with Art
> History. If you claim it does you are limiting its use. If you read Nadaeu's
> History of Surrealism it is quite the opposite of your Art History book.
We're using two different words here. I don't believe that Breton had any right
to define 'surrealism', as he had little to do with the movement.
You believe that you have inherited the mantle of 'surrealism'. On the other
hand, I think that modern surrealism lies firmly in the hands of artists like
H.R. Giger.<More snipping of people arguing two different points.>
> Brandon: I've neve quoted Breton to you. What's your problem. What do you
> have against Breton and for Dali?
>
I have much against Breton but -- admittedly -- not much for Dali. He was the
pre-Warhol Warhol.
Breton, essentially, strikes me as the quintessential 'follower'; a man of
little talent who tried, unsuccessfully, to graft a highly indavidualistic
artistic movement to collectivist philosophy. What he *succeeded* in doing is
grafting Freud and Jung into the Marxist-Leninist
dictatorship-of-the-proletariat ideal.
... which, IMHO, is exactly where it belongs; it provides a pseudorational
refutation and replacement for religion.
That could've gone somewhere, I think, if Breton hadn't enjoyed being the
'leader' of the surrealists. In any case, he expended most of his considerable
effort in burying his enemies in venomous twaddle.
Meanwhile, the artists who were his friends continued to do sublime works of
art, utterly divorced from the collectivist ideal which Breton so ardently
pursued.
My essential argument lies here: Breton had as much to do with surrealism as
Herodotus had to do with classical Egyptian society. He was their scribe; their
documentor; and, eventually, their voice. But what was actually *going on* in
the movement -- the artistic and metaphysical (insofar as 'metaphysics' can
apply) revolution -- had little to do with him.
> >If I can get somebody to agree with my definitions of those phrases, we
> are
> >communicating. If I can get somebody to even understand what I mean by
> those
> >phrases, I am communicating. As I said earlier: you know what I am talking
> >about. You understand what English is; presumably, I'm speaking it.
>
> Brandon: All my English words mean something different than yours. I've had
> no idea what you've been saying all along. This has nothing to do with
> ignorance, but with a point that redefining things can be a hard thing to do
> and lead to many unwanted consequences.
I think that, for the most part, I'm establishing a contrary definition. Were
you to know my personal mythology, I would then be unrestricted in definition,
as you'd understand what the underlying meaning was. As it is, however, I must
establish the redefinition of the word with a collection of other words.
The problem lies mainly in this: I do not have a word other than 'surrealism' to
refer to the movement of which I speak. You have established a claim on that
word, thus restricting my own ability to refer to said movement. *That* is what
I'm arguing against.
> Freedom of definition inintellectual conversation is out of bounds. Freedom of
> definition is a surrealist tool, but only in documentation of something.
I disagree that there is so sharp a boundry between 'intellectual prose' and
'art'.
Brandon J. Freels
>ignorance. especially in "alt.surrealism", one should be able to expect
>the perspective of surrealists to decide the matter.
Brandon: I can't stop laughing.
>they are those who have internalized and _extended_ (not
>contradicted and reversed) this project in freshly discovered fields of
>investigation as well as along existing trajectories toward the marvelous
>begun by fallen colleagues.
Brandon: Ah. Discovery! That's the word!
>and they don't have to know anything about "literature and visual arts" to
>do so.
Brandon: Correct. Lets not limit surrealism to "literature and visual arts"
for if we do we are making it smaller than it is.
Brandon J. Freels
right
>to define 'surrealism', as he had little to do with the movement.
>You believe that you have inherited the mantle of 'surrealism'. On the
other
>hand, I think that modern surrealism lies firmly in the hands of artists
like
>H.R. Giger.<More snipping of people arguing two different points.>
Brandon: Modern Surrealism has nothing to do with artists (nor did
surrealism of the past). Damn it. I hate art freaks. Art is away to
"document" the surrealism that exists in the everyday world. Magritte, early
Dali, etc, are all documenting their unforeseen images. Brunel and Dali's
movies are based on their dreams. Art is desposable to Surrealism's cause.
The freedom of the mind does not need literature or art, these are only
tools to "represent" surrealism. They can never "really" be surrealism, for
real surrealism is beyond documentation.
>Breton, essentially, strikes me as the quintessential 'follower'; a man of
>little talent who tried, unsuccessfully, to graft a highly indavidualistic
>artistic movement to collectivist philosophy. What he *succeeded* in doing
is
>grafting Freud and Jung into the Marxist-Leninist
>dictatorship-of-the-proletariat ideal.
Brandon: But what does talent have to do with surrealism? Nothing. If Breton
was talentless he was at least smart. He is the one who put two and five
together and discovered surrealism, nobody else. His references to others
(marx, freud) is only in that these are individuals who only skimmed
surrealism's surface.
>My essential argument lies here: Breton had as much to do with surrealism
as
>Herodotus had to do with classical Egyptian society. He was their scribe;
their
>documentor; and, eventually, their voice. But what was actually *going on*
in
>the movement -- the artistic and metaphysical (insofar as 'metaphysics' can
>apply) revolution -- had little to do with him.
Brandon: Scribe? Since when did Breton talk about other people but himself
and his life. I don't get it. The true documentors of the movement are
Nadaeu, Patrick Waldberg, etc, who were there and didn't participate as much
as they observed. Have you even read any of Breton's work?
>I think that, for the most part, I'm establishing a contrary definition.
Were
>you to know my personal mythology, I would then be unrestricted in
definition,
>as you'd understand what the underlying meaning was. As it is, however, I
must
>establish the redefinition of the word with a collection of other words.
Brandon: I don't care about your personal mythology.
>The problem lies mainly in this: I do not have a word other than
'surrealism' to
>refer to the movement of which I speak. You have established a claim on
that
>word, thus restricting my own ability to refer to said movement. *That* is
what
>I'm arguing against.
Brandon: I have no claim on any word. I object to your definition because
its stupid.
>I disagree that there is so sharp a boundry between 'intellectual prose'
and
>'art'.
Brandon: You may disagree but you're wrong. Again, art is only documentation
of the unconscious mind. Intellectual works, like breton's manifestos, is
trying to convey information so it must be clearly stated. A good example of
this is comparing the manifestos with "Soluble Fish." One is a documentation
of automatism, the other is a critical work.
I am beginning to doubt your intelligence on the issue. What do you know of
surrealism of the past. You have already called Magritte a dadaist, what
other mistakes are you going to make? Do you consider Andy Warhol a
surrealist too?!
---BJF
Brandon J. Freels
First off, Louis Aragon, Breton, and Philippe Soupault "discovered"
Surrealism.
None of them were "artists."
Second. For awhile the Surrealists debated the existence of "Surrealist
Paintings" and you, Andreas, thou who worships the plastic arts, should
thank Breton's grave for it was him who made the acceptance of painting into
surrealism possible.
Third. Breton set up a majority of the events surrounding the Paris
Surrealist group. He wasn't a leader, but just highly involved (see
Investigating Sex: Surrealist Discussions for the fact that he was the one
of only three surrealists to participate in all the discussions).
Fourth. In my "art history" books all of them mention Breton. So what the
hell are you talking about?
---BJF
Brandon J. Freels
company, are the only Surrealists who were right. There were other groups:
Bataille's group
Rene Dumaul's group
The Belgian group (Magritte, Nouge)
The British group
The Caribbean group
The Japanese group
(I'm leaving out somebody)
All these groups, at some point, came into conflict with Breton's ideas, but
at the same time they all also were directly derived from the Parisian
group.
If Breton, and Aragon, and Soupault would have never discovered what they
saw as surrealism the entire project would be unknown today.
No Dali. No Magritte. No Bellmer. Nothing except for Dada.
Your insistence that surrealism was entirely an art movement is so full of
shit that I can see it oozing out of your font.
---BJF
Andreas Schou
Brandon J. Freels <Fre...@ethergate.com> wrote in article
<cLzU1.25$2h1....@news.eli.net>...
> I am not saying that the Paris Surrealist led by Aragon, Breton, and
> company, are the only Surrealists who were right. There were other
groups:
>
> Bataille's group
> Rene Dumaul's group
> The Belgian group (Magritte, Nouge)
> The British group
> The Caribbean group
> The Japanese group
> (I'm leaving out somebody)
>
> All these groups, at some point, came into conflict with Breton's ideas,
but
> at the same time they all also were directly derived from the Parisian
> group.
Indeed. Andre, if nothing else, was a brilliant organizer. He was, however,
utterly inconsequential; he *organized* the movement, but the movement --
more scattered, perhaps, and more fractuous -- would've existed if neither
he nor Aragon were born.
> If Breton, and Aragon, and Soupault would have never discovered what they
> saw as surrealism the entire project would be unknown today.
Christ. I simply wish that Bretonites would shut the hell up and let the
surrealists go back to their work. Frankly, they don't need anyone bleating
from soapboxes balanced on their heads.
> No Dali. No Magritte. No Bellmer. Nothing except for Dada.
The fact that people today would not call them 'surrealist' does not
influence the fact that that is -- likelier than not -- what they would be
painting. In this alternate history, Dada would've continued a lot longer
than it did, balancing itself between one center in Switzerland and one
center in Paris.
Nothing except Dada. So... what've you proven that Breton did other than
popularize the word 'surrealism'?
> Your insistence that surrealism was entirely an art movement is so full
of
> shit that I can see it oozing out of your font.
No. It was not entirely an art movement. It was a teetering communist ideal
balanced atop an art movement balanced atop a writing movement balanced
atop Freud and Dada.
I'm simply saying that the collectivist philosophy bleated by so many
surrealists is neither consequential nor compatible with the
individualistic goals of those who involved themselves in the movement.
-- Andreas
Andreas Schou
Brandon J. Freels <Fre...@ethergate.com> wrote in article
<7BzU1.24$2h1....@news.eli.net>...
> Okay, so I am a little pissed off.
>
> First off, Louis Aragon, Breton, and Philippe Soupault "discovered"
> Surrealism.
>
> None of them were "artists."
Artist; not in the painterly sense, but in the sense that Breton had some
marvelously laughable creative attempts before settling down into the
wholly banal -- and, fortunately, less harmful -- business of documenting
what several groups of poets and artists were doing, and organizing public
relations for them.
> Second. For awhile the Surrealists debated the existence of "Surrealist
> Paintings" and you, Andreas, thou who worships the plastic arts, should
> thank Breton's grave for it was him who made the acceptance of painting
into
> surrealism possible.
Er. Actually, the painting would've existed without surrealism. It was the
inevitable direction of Dada. The fact that Breton declared them to be
surrealists is utterly irrelevant to the fact that _surrealism was what
they were doing anyway_.
> Third. Breton set up a majority of the events surrounding the Paris
> Surrealist group. He wasn't a leader, but just highly involved (see
> Investigating Sex: Surrealist Discussions for the fact that he was the
one
> of only three surrealists to participate in all the discussions).
Neat. He was the painters (and the writers', et cetera) PR agent. How does
that make him any more than an ineffectual bureaucrat, plastering his own
ineffectual twaddle atop the shoulders of giants.
> Fourth. In my "art history" books all of them mention Breton. So what the
> hell are you talking about?
Er. Rather: My text for 20th Century European Art or sommat.
The fact that yours mention him does not affect the fact that mine does
not.
P.S. Does the fact that you've snipped the rest of my post mean that you're
unable to answer the *other* arguments contained therein?
Brandon J. Freels
>Artist; not in the painterly sense, but in the sense that Breton had some
>marvelously laughable creative attempts before settling down into the
>wholly banal -- and, fortunately, less harmful -- business of documenting
>what several groups of poets and artists were doing, and organizing public
>relations for them.
Brandon: I don't know where you're getting this idea that he is documenting
what several groups of poets and artists were doing.
>Er. Actually, the painting would've existed without surrealism. It was the
>inevitable direction of Dada. The fact that Breton declared them to be
>surrealists is utterly irrelevant to the fact that _surrealism was what
>they were doing anyway_.
Brandon: No. Dali's paintings may have never even come about. Magritte may
have furthered his cubist ambitions (which were aweful). Dada is very
different from surrealism, and if these artist were affected by Dada rather
than surrealism they would have turned out to be different painers. No
"Trechery of Images" for Magritte. No "Lugubrious Game" for Dali. Breton
didn't "declare" them to be surrealists. They found Breton and the Paris
Surrealists and said "hey, I like this."
>Neat. He was the painters (and the writers', et cetera) PR agent. How does
>that make him any more than an ineffectual bureaucrat, plastering his own
>ineffectual twaddle atop the shoulders of giants.
Brandon: He was the PR agent for all of surrealism. Not just for the
painters and writers, but for anyone associated with the movement. His
support obviously did something to raise their standing for if he did not
Dali would have never existed.
>Er. Rather: My text for 20th Century European Art or sommat.
>The fact that yours mention him does not affect the fact that mine does
>not.
Brandon: What kind of 20th century European art book do you have? It must
have been cheap.
>P.S. Does the fact that you've snipped the rest of my post mean that you're
>unable to answer the *other* arguments contained therein?
Brandon: I just don't care. I don't see your arguments of any value. Even
Talysman had better arguments than you.
Brandon J. Freels
>Indeed. Andre, if nothing else, was a brilliant organizer. He was, however,
>utterly inconsequential; he *organized* the movement, but the movement --
>more scattered, perhaps, and more fractuous -- would've existed if neither
>he nor Aragon were born.
Brandon: A brilliant organizer? Inconsequential? The movement would have
existed, but maybe at a far later date. 1950's or so, but I don't see anyone
coming along to "discover" it in the 1920's but them.
>Christ. I simply wish that Bretonites would shut the hell up and let the
>surrealists go back to their work. Frankly, they don't need anyone bleating
>from soapboxes balanced on their heads.
Brandon: I simply wish the idiots who are building Breton up by their
objection of him would shut the hell up and go back to their work. Frankly,
if they don't need anyone bleating from soapboxes balanced on their heads
they should have never came to this newsgroup.
>The fact that people today would not call them 'surrealist' does not
>influence the fact that that is -- likelier than not -- what they would be
>painting. In this alternate history, Dada would've continued a lot longer
>than it did, balancing itself between one center in Switzerland and one
>center in Paris.
Brandon: If Dada continued these artists art would be completely different.
What you seem to miss is the idea that these artists weren't born painting
the way they painted. It was the encounters with the Paris Surrealist group
that set them on their way. The influence of the surrealist thinkers is what
made Dali, Magritte, Tanguy, Bellmer, and the whole lot of artists who they
were. Bellmer was highly influenced by Bataille. if he would have never read
Bataille who knows how different his work would have been.
>Nothing except Dada. So... what've you proven that Breton did other than
>popularize the word 'surrealism'?
Brandon: Breton popularized the "concept" of "surrealism." Dada and
surrealism are very different. Inner vs. outer. They simple aren't the same
thing. And if you accept that they are then you are fooling yourself. And
why have you never explained why you believe Magritte to be a Dadaists?
>No. It was not entirely an art movement. It was a teetering communist ideal
>balanced atop an art movement balanced atop a writing movement balanced
>atop Freud and Dada.
Brandon: Thank you.
>I'm simply saying that the collectivist philosophy bleated by so many
>surrealists is neither consequential nor compatible with the
>individualistic goals of those who involved themselves in the movement.
Brandon: There is only one goal --- freedom of the mind. Individualists who
contradict there search for freedom by imposing shackles are simply going in
the opposite direction.
Talysman
in alt.surrealism:
"surrealism has a different meaning to you than to me. You can tell me
"that one of the ideals of the concept of the surrealist project is
"liberation of the mind, but can you tell me exactly how to go about
"doing that? What works for you may not work for me. Why? Because
"everyone is obviously different.
[ ... ]
"On the whole, I'm not really arguing validity of what is surreal or
"not surreal, or what is surrealiy/what's not, but rather, that the
"shared reality that is surrealism looks different from every point of
"view.
I think you might also want to say that just because one person, a
surrealist, uses one image (an apple, watch, or eyeball) in a
surrealist work of art or literature, in no way can we claim that
other artists aren't surrealists because they *don't* use such
images... and, conversely, because one person, a surrealist, doesn't
like a particular image, in no way can we claim that those who use
that image are *not* surrealists.
we keep hearing about "the surrealist project". the surrealist
project, as I understand it, is about liberating desire and
imagination, and arises from arecognition of how oppressive society
around us is... the surrealist project defines many "beloved"
institutions (governments, churches, banks, businesses, just about
everything) as part of the oppression of desire and imagination.
(am I wrong here, Brandon? am I wrong here, Barrett?)
I don't think anyone here disagrees with that statement; it's what we
all want. where the disagreement arises is: not everyone agrees on
what will liberate desire or imagination, and some people feel that
*their* oppinions on what will and will not liberate are the *correct*
ones.
as we all know (because I have said it,) I find exploring mythology
and religion useful, because a hell of a lot of creativity went into
them. I try to outdo their creativity. I don't try to create a new
oppressive religion, or insist on some objective truth to my
inventions -- in fact, as I have stated, I doubt the objective truth
of *everything*; the best we can do is approximate reality. I use
the creation of gods the way Chazal used his surreal pentateuch, as
an exercise in overthrowing religion.
Barrett does not agree with this approach, but since he also admits
that he doesn't find mysticism, alchemy, or native american myths of
interest, but recognizes that some surrealists have used these to
make liberating statements, I think he's willing to allow me my
playtoys.
likewise, I do not agree with Marxist economic philosophy, even though
I oppose the way capitalism operates for my own reasons. I would like
to think that disagreeing with the communist (pseudocommunist?)
surrealists of the past does not invalidate my claim to surrealism.
and I think this is what is being debated: must we accept every single
ludicrous pronouncement made by past surrealists in order to *be*
surrealists, or are we allowed to simply accept the basic principles,
and find our own way? or, to simplify the question:
is surrealism in the specifics, or in the general?
--
those are some mighty feldman mothers!
His Most Feathered Eminence, the Ur-Beatle
P Kinsler
> as we all know (because I have said it,) I find exploring mythology
> and religion useful, because a hell of a lot of creativity went into
> them. I try to outdo their creativity. I don't try to create a new
> oppressive religion, or insist on some objective truth to my
> inventions -- in fact, as I have stated, I doubt the objective truth
> of *everything*; the best we can do is approximate reality. I use
> the creation of gods the way Chazal used his surreal pentateuch, as
> an exercise in overthrowing religion.
And this is truely surreal: expousing the lack of any objective
truth using a medium created entirely by a technology and a science
which _are_ predicated entirely on the existence of objective truth.
Andreas Schou
Brandon J. Freels wrote:
> Andreas Schou wrote in message <01bdf5f9$b4dd3660
>
> >Artist; not in the painterly sense, but in the sense that Breton had some
> >marvelously laughable creative attempts before settling down into the
> >wholly banal -- and, fortunately, less harmful -- business of documenting
> >what several groups of poets and artists were doing, and organizing public
> >relations for them.
>
> Brandon: I don't know where you're getting this idea that he is documenting
> what several groups of poets and artists were doing.
His role was the documentation and explanation of what everybody elase was
doing.
> >Er. Actually, the painting would've existed without surrealism. It was the
> >inevitable direction of Dada. The fact that Breton declared them to be
> >surrealists is utterly irrelevant to the fact that _surrealism was what
> >they were doing anyway_.
>
> Brandon: No. Dali's paintings may have never even come about. Magritte may
> have furthered his cubist ambitions (which were aweful).
Yeah, they *were* pretty bad, actually. No great loss, though, if he had. There
are, for every famous artist, a thousand wanna-bes waiting to take their place.
So. No Magritte.
> Dada is very
> different from surrealism, and if these artist were affected by Dada rather
> than surrealism they would have turned out to be different painers. No
> "Trechery of Images" for Magritte. No "Lugubrious Game" for Dali. Breton
> didn't "declare" them to be surrealists. They found Breton and the Paris
> Surrealists and said "hey, I like this."
>
Surrealism was hardly a distinct cultural event from dada; in this case, many of
the participants were the same people. The end of WWI took many of the
expatriate dadaists out of Switzerland and back to their home countries. The
French contingent -- natch -- ended up back in France, right where the
Surrealists were beginning. Dada meets Surrealism (which had quite an
intellectual debt to Futurism) -- poof, Surrealist painters
Without Breton's Surrealists: Dali (with his background in early-20th-century
psychology and pre-existant interest in dream imagery) meets neo-Futurists meets
returning dadaists meets some alternate PR agent -- poof, Surrealist painters,
except they're not *called* Surrealists.
Now. Hrm. I suppose I'm forced to admit that the literary aspects of surrealism
had some reliance on Breton's theories -- however, Apollinaire and Tzara were,
although less intellectually rigorous than Breton, far, far more important to
the movement as a whole.
(Furthermore, I really *don't* see how the word 'surrealism' came to be
associated with a *political* movement, other than Breton's increasingly banal
attempts to graft himself onto the budding communist movement.)
> >Neat. He was the painters (and the writers', et cetera) PR agent. How does
> >that make him any more than an ineffectual bureaucrat, plastering his own
> >ineffectual twaddle atop the shoulders of giants.
>
> Brandon: He was the PR agent for all of surrealism. Not just for the
> painters and writers, but for anyone associated with the movement.
True.
> His support obviously did something to raise their standing
True.
> for if he did not Dali would have never existed.
Dali's family was quite affluent; he could afford to support his artistic
dalliances with whatever he wished. Plus: do you *really* believe that Dali's
ego needed inflation? Gah. The man was two shades away from being a
megalomaniac.To present another metaphor:
A singer is promoted by some fat-cat agent at Sony Records.
Ergo, everything she sings is about the agent. Ergo, the person who best
represents her views is the agent.
Does *this* sound right to you?
> >Er. Rather: My text for 20th Century European Art or sommat.
> >The fact that yours mention him does not affect the fact that mine does
> >not.
>
(ARH 272. Yes, it was cheap, actually; it's the reason they're using it for the
course. )
> Brandon: What kind of 20th century European art book do you have? It must
> have been cheap.
>
> >P.S. Does the fact that you've snipped the rest of my post mean that you're
> >unable to answer the *other* arguments contained therein?
>
> Brandon: I just don't care. I don't see your arguments of any value. Even
> Talysman had better arguments than you.
Translation: I cannot refute; ergo, I must insult.
(Also: Don't change the subject when you can't win an argument. It makes you
look silly.)
I don't mind the discourtesy. I've hardly been courteous myself, you pretentious
little twat. It's the intellectual dishonesty that I'm bitching about.
Brandon J. Freels
>the surrealist project defines many "beloved"
>institutions (governments, churches, banks, businesses, just about
>everything) as part of the oppression of desire and imagination.
>(am I wrong here, Brandon? am I wrong here, Barrett?)
Brandon: You are correct.
>I don't think anyone here disagrees with that statement; it's what we
>all want. where the disagreement arises is: not everyone agrees on
>what will liberate desire or imagination, and some people feel that
>*their* opinions on what will and will not liberate are the *correct*
>ones.
Brandon: Yes, this seems to be what is happening.
>as we all know (because I have said it,) I find exploring mythology
>and religion useful, because a hell of a lot of creativity went into
>them. I try to outdo their creativity.
Brandon: I am starting to understand what "your view" is and it is making
more sense. I never said I was against ancient myths, only I was against the
worship of those ancient myths. The creation of "mock mythology" sound very
interesting, and I am in no way against see the outcome.
>Barrett does not agree with this approach, but since he also admits
>that he doesn't find mysticism, alchemy, or native american myths of
>interest, but recognizes that some surrealists have used these to
>make liberating statements, I think he's willing to allow me my
>playtoys.
Brandon: I don't know about Barrett, but I find them of interest, but not
surreal.
>and I think this is what is being debated: must we accept every single
>ludicrous pronouncement made by past surrealists in order to *be*
>surrealists, or are we allowed to simply accept the basic principles,
>and find our own way? or, to simplify the question:
Brandon: I don't accept everything Breton said. If fact, lately I've been
more inclined towards Bataille. And I'm always open to new ideas, but these
ideas need to be worked to perfection before acceptance into Surrealism.
Your idea of creating myths or gods every morning is not one that I object
to (the only problem I had with you was this "god" thing which seems to be
mainly political between the two of us).
barrett john erickson
> we keep hearing about "the surrealist project". the surrealist
> project, as I understand it, is about liberating desire and
> imagination, and arises from arecognition of how oppressive society
> around us is... the surrealist project defines many "beloved"
> institutions (governments, churches, banks, businesses, just about
> everything) as part of the oppression of desire and imagination.
> (am I wrong here, Brandon? am I wrong here, Barrett?)
yes.
i would only add that the integration of that liberated imagination into
daily life is also fundamental. which i believe helps highlight the social
aspect of this project.
> make liberating statements, I think he's willing to allow me my
> playtoys.
at least to a point short of implying that they are compatible with
surrealism. which is not to declare them incompatible, necessarily, but
only that the "player" must be able to defend any such a claim in the
context of current, living surrealism, not simply a personal interpretation
of same.
> likewise, I do not agree with Marxist economic philosophy, even though
> I oppose the way capitalism operates for my own reasons. I would like
> to think that disagreeing with the communist (pseudocommunist?)
> surrealists of the past does not invalidate my claim to surrealism.
certainly not.
> and I think this is what is being debated: must we accept every single
> ludicrous pronouncement made by past surrealists in order to *be*
> surrealists, or are we allowed to simply accept the basic principles,
> and find our own way? or, to simplify the question:
no, that wasn't the debate as it devolved. the disagreement with xister
exists at a much more fundamental level. but i would like to move beyond
that.
> is surrealism in the specifics, or in the general?
surrealism is in the process, in the action, in the project (collective and
social as well as personal).
but now i'm beginning to see how sloppy i've become in using the word
"surrealism" as a kind of shorthand in our discussions. perhaps if i had
taken the time to be more accurate, some of the misunderstandings might
have been averted, or at least their roots more quickly exposed.
there is no way to formulate a definition of "surrealism" as if attributes
could be observed and degrees of conformance or deviation measured. the
term simply has no meaning except _in relation_ to the activities of
surrealists.
and surrealists are, as i said in response to Andreas Shou:
> ... those who have understood and committed themselves to the
> surrealist project as it has been theoretically explored, witnessed and
> collectively practiced -- not as a "school" or a "style" or a "club" or a
> "set of rules" but as the intuitive recognition of a fundamental life
> imperative. they are those who have internalized and _extended_ (not
> contradicted and reversed) this project in freshly discovered fields of
> investigation as well as along existing trajectories toward the marvelous
> begun by fallen colleagues.
barrett john erickson
after your recent posts, we have a lot of work to do before i'll be able to
take you seriously.
so let's begin...
what is your perception of dada?
how does dada differ from "surrealism"?
what attracted you to "surrealism"?
under what circumstances did you first feel that attraction?
who were the "precursors to 'surrealism'" in you?
what do you hope to contribute to "surrealism"?
Brandon J. Freels
>His role was the documentation and explanation of what everybody elase was
>doing.
Brandon: I disagree. Reading Nadja, Communicating Vessels, Mad Love, I see
that they have nothing to do with the other artists, but his own obsession
(Nadja), his own dreams (Vessels), and his own idea of beauty (Mad Love).
>Surrealism was hardly a distinct cultural event from dada; in this case,
many of
>the participants were the same people.
Brandon: Yes, the same people, but with a different mindset.
>Without Breton's Surrealists: Dali (with his background in
early-20th-century
>psychology and pre-existant interest in dream imagery) meets neo-Futurists
meets
>returning dadaists meets some alternate PR agent -- poof, Surrealist
painters,
>except they're not *called* Surrealists.
Brandon: I'm not so sure of this equation.
>Apollinaire and Tzara were,
>although less intellectually rigorous than Breton, far, far more important
to
>the movement as a whole.
Brandon: I don't think Tzara was influencal on Surrealism at all. Of course
Apollinaire was, but he was influencial on everything at the time (Cubist,
Dadaist, Surrealist).
>(Furthermore, I really *don't* see how the word 'surrealism' came to be
>associated with a *political* movement, other than Breton's increasingly
banal
>attempts to graft himself onto the budding communist movement.)
Brandon: Interesting. Possibly correct. At first I saw no connection between
Surrealism and Communism and felt the same way, but I see communism
different now than I did when I originally viewed it with Americanized
glasses (although now I could be viewing it with Bretonized glasses).
>Dali's family was quite affluent; he could afford to support his artistic
>dalliances with whatever he wished. Plus: do you *really* believe that
Dali's
>ego needed inflation? Gah. The man was two shades away from being a
>megalomaniac.To present another metaphor:
Brandon: Dali's ego didn't evolve until he got the support from the U.S. art
community. Breton controlled him in the early years. Bataille was going to
use "The Lugubrious Game" with an essay, but Breton objected due to his
dislike for Bataille so Dali didn't let Bataille use the illistration
because of Breton.
Some more important Art History books than the one you have:
Robert Hughes Shock of the New
Arnason's Modern Art
Nadeau's History of Surrealism (keep in mind Nadeau had some disagreements
with Breton)
Patrick Waldberg's Surrealism
Etc.
---BJF
scot...@earthlink.net
him. They assumed they had a natural right to give names to
any place and thing in the "new" world they chose to claim
ownership of. They were not meek. Their Bishops wore red robes.
Now we believe we own everything. Others must understand what we mean.
It is their responsibility. The "new" world has progressed along our
own trajectory. We own the language and the dictionaries.
There are men however who spend their lives hunting down ancient
grains of corn and finding ways to store them safely. The genetic
possibilities in these grains are mixed and wild. Modern varieties
are strong producers in narrow environmental parameters. They provide
no safety if real disasters come.
barrett john erickson wrote:
>
> having reread my original post, i just can't see how i could've been
> clearer, yet Andreas Schou (and xister in "what he said") still haven't
> come close to understanding what i'm trying to get across.
>
> the only thing that occured to me to try after reading these responses was
> this:
>
> what is it you (Andreas and xister) are doing when you use the word
> surrealism?
>
> are you just making noise? in which case i'll happily ignore it.
>
> or are you actually trying to communicate some concept to someone else?
>
> i'm not asking you what you think "surrealism" is, i'm asking you if you
> use the word in an attempt to communicate.
>
> you really do seem to be arguing that words have no meaning beyond the
> individual who uses them. this is just bullshit. any word you haven't
> made up yourself has some meaning for others. language isn't just making
> noise.
>
> confirming your total misunderstanding you said:
>
> "One can argue that the Church still exists; one can argue that the Bible
> already exists, but one cannot argue that the definition of the terms, the
> interpretation of the ideas, and the dynamic creation of the entity which
> is Christianity has ceased."
>
> does this mean everyone can decide for themselves what christianity is?
> can i say it means that jesus christ was mary's pet porcupine who would
> morph into an evil magician and mutilate millions with the phasers given to
> him by his cousin teddy who lived on jupiter, and expect christians to
> recognize my right to do so and my right to call myself a christian?
>
> i just can't see how i could say it any plainer than i have but i'll risk
> using your own words in a final attempt to make you understand: in this
> analogy of yours _surrealism is not the church, it is christianity_ (shit,
> that put a foul taste in my mouth).
>
> no matter how much you seem to want to, you cannot "argue that the
> definition of the terms, the interpretation of ideas and the dynamic
> creation of the entity which is [surrealism] has ceased" so that you can
> begin with a clean slate (or even two slates and a burning bush).
>
barrett john erickson
>
> And I end up thinking about Columbus and those who came after
> him. They assumed they had a natural right to give names to
> any place and thing in the "new" world they chose to claim
> ownership of. They were not meek. Their Bishops wore red robes.
this doesn't accurately depict the disagreement.
i do not object to them renaming anything. i object to using a word which
already exists, while willfully disregarding its existing meaning among the
people who are already using it and with whom they are trying to
communicate.
as if columbus and his followers decided to call the island to the south of
florida "paris" and expected queen isabelle to understand the nature of
their journeys by simply saying they went to "paris".
if anyone wants to give a name to whatever derivation of surrealism they
hold, i'll have no objections. as long as they don't try to get me to
ignore their subversion of the meaning of words already in use, while
claiming to support the concepts and people it refers to.
> Now we believe we own everything. Others must understand what we mean.
> It is their responsibility. The "new" world has progressed along our
> own trajectory. We own the language and the dictionaries.
on the contrary. if i thought it was the "other's" responsibility to
understand me, i wouldn't work so hard to try to clarify what i'm really
arguing.
i don't believe we own anything, much less ideas.
> There are men however who spend their lives hunting down ancient
> grains of corn and finding ways to store them safely. The genetic
> possibilities in these grains are mixed and wild. Modern varieties
> are strong producers in narrow environmental parameters. They provide
> no safety if real disasters come.
and they will.
--
Clayton Francis
absolute sense.