repost: "for xister: why surrealism is not a soft drink but dada is"
barrett john erickson
for xister: why surrealism is not a soft drink but dada is
Date:
Sat, 10 Oct 1998 02:07:18 -0500
From:
barrett john erickson <bar...@MagneticFields.org>
Organization:
MagneticFields.org
Newsgroups:
alt.surrealism
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.
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
Dale Houstman
I am a Communist but do not believe in communal action.
I am a Atheist who believes in God.
I am a Anarchist who believes in the Plutocracy.
I am a Bus Driver who drives a hatbox for a living.
I am a Dentist who gives Baptisms to Martians.
I am a Twenty Year Old with Ninety Year Old Hair.
I am a Lobster who flies over Chicago.
I am Jesus in a topless cocktail dress.
I am Hedy Lamar with a moustache.
I am an Alarmist without an alarm.
etc.
Words mean something, or they don't. There is no such thing as a
Surrealist who believes in religion and gods, just as a Christian once he
ceases believing in Christ
must call himself something else: say, a Buddhist? This is not a matter of
liking or disliking any religion or god; it is a simple matter of
definition.
As for progress, once an idea progresses too far outside its own
definition, it changes its name. A Surrealist who believes in religion is
a (possibly) an Absurdist, or even a Comedian, but they are no longer a
Surrealist. NOT BECAUSE I don't want you in the club, but because
Surrealism as an idea does include such (for it) irrelevancies. I
personally do not care if you worship puppies at an altar made of
flapjacks and run naked through the streets of Rome waving a burning
mudflap above your head; but if it is done in the name of god-worship,
it isn't Surrealism.
It's like teaching Urdu to a Dolphin...
Dale Houstman
Fascinan
>Surrealist who believes in religion and gods, just as a Christian once he
>ceases believing in Christ
>must call himself something else:
I disagree with this statement. Words have meaning.....but the meaning is
never black or white, once we move past the self. For the Innuit eskimo there
are 15 or so words for snow. I don't like the confinement of a word. "God" is
the prime example. I like what Joseph Campbell has to say about people
embracing the icon or name for the eternal, instead of really coming into
experiential relations with the force behind the mask. Unfortunately, many
people worship an icon: the cross is consecrated, days are consecrated, the
symbols are consecrated. We lose sight of that power which drives us to have
the symbols in the first place.
A word like Religion, surrealism, divinity, mysticism....these embrace
countless subjective subtleties. These words represent entire fields of
experience and belief systems.
To tell me if I believe in God, or practice a religion and thus can't be a
surrealist imposes great limitation upon what surrealism could be.
If anything, Surrealism should seek to embrace everything that squirms about
under the blazing sun.
The petty dualism of for or against bathes in ignorance. One imposes their
own perception of a mutable paradigm, and following the doctrine inculcated by
past surrealists (for lack of their own vision), they try to draw big black and
white lines across a canvas that audaciously displays the full spectrum.
Fascinan
scot...@earthlink.net
<dale.h...@gte.net> wrote:
> I
>personally do not care if you worship puppies at an altar made of
>flapjacks and run naked through the streets of Rome waving a burning
>mudflap above your head; but if it is done in the name of god-worship,
>it isn't Surrealism.
In one sense I would agree that the context of an action is important.
In another sense it is not.
At some point in an action if the mind/ body are totally involved in
an interaction with environment there is an instant of creation where
a new reality is formed that alters in some small way both the
mind/body and the environment. In some small way the universe has been
recreated.
I would tend to call this a surreal event. Someone else might call it
something different.
The interpretational context going into the event, and the after the
fact interpretation of the event don't really mean much.
The event itself would have been real and important.
perceptor
> 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
>
Barrett,
For the past 30+ years I have found that the Art , Literature, and Poetry
that is labeled as "Surrealist" (or coming from "surrealist sources) has
been a personally compelling and attractive category
of Art consumption and experience for me, I guess we would call it
personal taste. I cannot profess to be a "surrealist" or to have a
profound understanding of the movement, All I will say is that in It's
expression I have seen things not accessible trough other "Schools"
of Art. Because of this my intellect cries out for more information and
analysis of the phenomena.
It is with posts such as the one you just made that help supply basic
information to me that is one of the reasons I find this news group so
stimulating. I hope that you and others continue to speak to the subject
informing and educating us all.
Thank you for enduring my poor grammer, don------
Talysman
in amazement, I beheld Dale Houstman <dale.h...@gte.net>
write in alt.surrealism:
:)Words mean something, or they don't. There is no such thing as a
:)Surrealist who believes in religion and gods, just as a Christian once he
:)ceases believing in Christ
:)must call himself something else: say, a Buddhist? This is not a matter of
:)liking or disliking any religion or god; it is a simple matter of
:)definition.
the problem with this argument is that it goes against what you,
Barrett, Brandon, and EVERYONE has agreed upon: that surrealism
is ultimately about what surrealists do or have done (the surrealist
project.)
words mean something, but where does the meaning come from? from
human beings. organic beings. beings which change their meanings
over time, or within different contexts.
for words assigned concrete meanings (tree, car) there may be little
problem; move into something less tangible, and ambiguity creeps in.
a christian, for instance, is "someone who believes in christ", but
how does one measure or photograph "belief in christ" to determine
its presence or absence in an individual?
--
warm sins howl in our dreams.
His Most Feathered Eminence, the Ur-Beatle
Dale Houstman
> the problem with this argument is that it goes against what you,
> Barrett, Brandon, and EVERYONE has agreed upon: that surrealism
> is ultimately about what surrealists do or have done (the surrealist
> project.)
>
> words mean something, but where does the meaning come from? from
> human beings. organic beings. beings which change their meanings
> over time, or within different contexts.
**
I saw that one coming!
Yes one can write (for example) "Jesus is a bivalve toaster" and "defeat"
the purpose of those words for the moment (like jumping into the air "defeats"
gravity?), but the
impact of such a phrase relies upon understanding initially what the words mean,
otherwise any parodic or blasphemous effect would be a waste.
And though you are minimally correct that words are made by human beings and
that
they can, in effect, change them all they want; the larger truth is that
language, in being
"artificed" by all mankind, belongs to none: it owns itself. Language is in
essence a contract for communication. One may break its rules at will, but that
contract remains. It would
take a lot of humans over a long course of time, to make the specific word
"apple"
mean "rhino nipples" and this would be a conspiracy of rather awful energies!
But we are not in essence speaking of word definitions here, but of
philosophical definitions; what is it that makes Surrealism surrealism?
Surrealism, as a program of
unarmed (and armed) desire, is predicated upon the notion of a human-centered
investigation ANEW of the world. Religious notions (no matter how comforting
or resplendently bedecked in Latin or German phrases) do not enter into this
discourse. It isn't even a matter of religious rejection: I have no problem with
a person's religious proclivities as long as they do not attempt to force them
upon
me. It is a matter simply of delineation of the world: just as if you cannot
designate
yourself "vegetarian" and eat meat. You can SAY "I am a vegetarian who loves the
taste of venison" and you can even say the word "vegetable" means "venison". But
you cannot change the horrible truth that the experience that the word
"vegetable"
refers to does not designate the experience that "venison" refers to. You can
only make your point (whatever it is!) against the backdrop of that reality. And
there is a
reality that pre-dates and will post-date human consciousness. And, if the
inanimate could talk it would also know that stars aren't garters.
Words do change their meanings, but not overnight and not arbitrarily.
"Surrealist" may someday mean "papal lickdog" but at that point it would no
longer designate what Surrealist means TODAY! And I wouldn't be on a discussion
group called "surrealist" at that point.
**
a christian, for instance, is "someone who believes in christ", but how does
one measure or photograph "belief in christ" to determine its presence or
absence in an individual?
**
But we are not discussing such fine ecumenical points: if a Christian says
he does not believe in Christ then he is no longer a christian. If a Surrealist
says he believes in God (unless he's joking!) then he is no longer a Surrealist.
They may go on claiming it, and they may even (eventually) get enough
kindred souls together to create "Christian Surrealism" (like "God Rock")
but that hasn't happened yet and (I am pretty certain) it won't. Until then I
claim the privilege of living in my world and not some projected hell of yours.
> **
Dale Houstman
Nikolaus Maack
Dale Houstman (dale.h...@gte.net) writes:
>if a Christian says he does not believe in Christ then he is no longer a
>christian. If a Surrealist says he believes in God (unless he's joking!)
>then he is no longer a Surrealist.
You speak of the "contract" of word meaning as though all words have an
understood definition that cannot be questioned. I completely disagree.
All words are ambiguous. No matter what word that is, from "apple" to
"Christian" to "Surrealist" and all the way back to "ant".
They may have a generally understood idea, but the actual definition, and
it's surrounding principles, are vague and watery.
For example, using the word "Christian" alone... There are thousands of
flavours of Christianity. The Fundementalist Christian will not get along
with the Roman Catholic. To say that a Christian is "someone who believes
in Christ" is a little simplistic. Muslims believe in Christ. They just
happen to believe that Muhammed was a little more important.
Apple. A simple word. What kind of apple do you think of when I say the
word? What sort of history does the word apple have for you? Do you
immediately think Adam and Eve? Macintosh? Granny Smith?
Arguing that the word "surrealism" has an understood definition that
cannot be questioned is foolish. All words are watery. We each have a
personal understanding and history with a word. A word is but a symbol,
and a symbol will always have a personal meaning that rises above cultural
definitions.
Nik
--
"Just because I eat meat doesn't mean I have a problem with
people killing each other."
--Chris Brown
barrett john erickson
Talysman wrote:
> words mean something, but where does the meaning come from? from
> human beings. organic beings. beings which change their meanings
> over time, or within different contexts.
then Nikolaus Maack wrote:
> Arguing that the word "surrealism" has an understood definition that
> cannot be questioned is foolish. All words are watery. We each have a
> personal understanding and history with a word. A word is but a symbol,
> and a symbol will always have a personal meaning that rises above cultural
> definitions.
I just don't understand why this should be so difficult to grasp:
The meaning of words, at least when one is attempting to communicate, comes
from their agreed use -- their _social_ context.
This endless argument has _never_ -- at least from _this_ side -- been about
competing definitions of "surrealism".
Contrary to the repetitious accusations, i haven't heard anyone from this side
claiming "surrealism" has a static meaning, or denying that "surrealism"
undergoes great changes as it evolves, or attempting to deny anyone's desire
to integrate selected portions of surrealist theory into a more personal
worldview -- even one which accepts mysticism and religion.
We _have_ said many times that we don't care if those who insist on doing so
make up their own "personal" definitions which totally disregard the long
history and current context of "surrealism" around the world -- _as long as
they don't expect others to accept their fantasy as a legitimate usage_.
The surrealist project is not a symbol up for grabs. It is a history of
exploration, theory and action which is genealogically traceable to the
explorations, theory and actions of surrealists around the world today.
"Surrealism" already has meaning in this context which is at odds (on very
fundamental levels) with many of the "personalist" assertions that have been
presented in this newsgroup.
The problem has _always_ been, as seen from here, that the "personalists" want
to _both_ make up their own definitions and then use these, as if they had
equal validity, in discussions about the theory and practice of "surrealism"
_as they've chosen to disregard it_ (i.e., on its social level).
When a "personalist" definition is insisted upon, a choice has been made to no
longer talk about "surrealism" as it exists. _We_ are simply insisting that
the "personalists" respect their own decision and stop claiming the
social/communicative relevance they've already denied.
Nikolaus Maack
barrett john erickson (bar...@MagneticFields.org) writes:
> The meaning of words, at least when one is attempting to communicate,
> comes from their agreed use -- their _social_ context.
And the social context is always distorted by personal experience. Most
people foolishly assume that their experiences mirror the experiences of
everyone else. We all know the defintion of a word. We all agree on it.
Right? Wrong.
Same fucking example I keep repeating: Does everyone think of the word
"apple" in the same way? What associations do you carry with that word,
that image? Your experiences with apples, since the day you were born,
taint the dictionary definition in ways you can't even imagine. The
influence is both conscious and unconscious. Mom force fed you apples as
a baby. Certain paintings of Eve offering the apple to Adam gave you huge
throbbing boners. You put an apple on your teacher's desk because
secretly you longed to fuck her.
Yes, there is a _social_ context, but the personal context will always
trip you up. This is why there are so many misunderstandings in the
world. It is very difficult to communicate anything to anyone, as the
internet, and this cursed newsgroup, demonstrates on a daily basis. We
all think we understand what words mean, but in reality our definitions
are much hazier than the Oxford English Dictionary.
Almost all debates are actually caused by differences in semantics. This
is why philosophy majors spend all their time defining words, the poor
bastards.
If a word were truly neutral and safe, with only a social context, with
only a dictionary definition, the world would be very dull. I enjoy the
messiness of the human language. Chaos is your friend. It is depressing
to watch people fight chaos. Fortunately, they will lose. Chaos always
wins, given enough time.
> This endless argument has _never_ -- at least from _this_ side -- been
> about competing definitions of "surrealism".
Argument? What argument? I don't want to define surrealism any more.
I'm not sure I ever *wanted* to define it. A certain group of people seem
very concerned that some of us are wandering around calling ourselves
surrealists, when according to some definitions, we are not surrealists at
all. Heavens to Besty, something must be done! Give me a petition and I
will sign it. Or perhaps I will eat the petition and excrete the result
on to a rosebush. It will do the world more good that way.
What you are saying to me is that I can call myself a surrealist, so long
as I recognize that I'm not really a surrealist. That's pretty fucking dim.
To quote some damn fool:
"Can you call yourself a Christian if you don't believe in Christ?"
As a matter of fact, yes, you can. Maybe the teachings of Christ turn
your crank, but the cult of Jesus pisses you off. So you follow the
gospel but you don't worship the guy nailed to the wooden boards. Ergo,
Christian, but not a believer in Christ.
I like surrealism, but I dislike authority. Any authority.
"The gods of surrealism say you can't be a surrealist and believe in God."
Well, then. Fuck the gods of surrealism.
The trouble with words, and definitions, and sentences, and expressing
ideas in text in general, is that the words can never convey the entire
experience. To say "Christian" or "surrealist" or "apple" or "dog turd"
will never convey the entirety of the matter. Words fail us constantly.
To deny this is to deny the complexity of life. Your existence and my
existence may have overlaps -- maybe we both think of ourselves as
surrealists -- but in many ways we may as well be from other planets.
> We _have_ said many times that we don't care if those who insist on doing so
> make up their own "personal" definitions which totally disregard the long
> history and current context of "surrealism" around the world -- _as long as
> they don't expect others to accept their fantasy as a legitimate usage_.
All fantasy is legitimate. History is a lie used to explain the now.
Prove to me that yesterday ever happened, and isn't an elaborate
conspiracy perpetrated upon us by history professors. All we have is
dream. Some of us insist on clinging to the dreams of others, deciding
that these dreams -- written in books, carved in stone, memorized by "wise
men" -- are facts. All dream is dream. A word is but a series of pixels
linked together with the glue of thought.
Books decay, stones erode, and wise men die. Not fast enough for my
taste, but I'm not in charge of the world, unfortunately.
> When a "personalist" definition is insisted upon, a choice has been made to no
> longer talk about "surrealism" as it exists. _We_ are simply insisting that
> the "personalists" respect their own decision and stop claiming the
> social/communicative relevance they've already denied.
I officially pronounce surrealism dead. It died short after it was
created, as soon as the word "surrealism" was defined. Now lets go back
to whatever it was we were doing, and not give it a name.
Nik
--
"Dogs aren't children, therefore your argument is flawed in a
very serious way."
--Grumblefish
Dale Houstman
One doesn't like to refer to "common sense" as an arbiter, but really!
There is no doubt that if I say "apple" you may think big and red and another
might think little and green, and another think of Adam and Eve, or a
computer. True; but only a madman would think of the Statue of Liberty.
We all know the difference between connotation and denotation, and are
experienced with nuance. But an apple never becomes the President of
Uruguay, unless there is a neurologically damaged listener. In other words,
no one is saying words are objects, and that their associations aren't both
more slippery and eclectic than objects themselves.
But words do mean things, and there is a limit to what they can be forced to
refer to which (when surpassed) leads to either poetic license, or to mad
and worthless communication. As I have said, there may be nuances to the word
"Christian" (as there are to the word "Surrealist") but everyone (who is not
insane or willfully attempting to scuttle the butt) knows the difference between
a profession of "Christianity" and a profession of "Baalism".
You can tell me that an "apple" is yellow and crabbed. No argument. But if
you tell me that an "apple" is a riding mower, I might either ignore you, or attempt
to determine why such a damaged notion has popped into your head. If it
is poetic license (and thus probably presented in the context of an experimental
text) or a provocation, I will understand. But if you truly believe that the word
apple designates a riding mower (green or red/sweet or tart) then I have the
absolute right (and maybe the social duty) to question your cognition, to presume
the presence of an aneurysm, etc.
A poetic disregard for diurnal connotation only functions as a provocation
against the backdrop of mutual understanding. The phrase "Julie wore her rubberized
rhino to the Iron Curtain toaster" only surprises by virtue of a communally
comprehended
cosmos of words: we all know where those words belong, and can now be either
bored or intrigued by their surprising placement. Without such delineation ALL
sentences would be the same sentence, differing only in length. and while this
might render the world infinitely fascinating to one who was bored of human
discourse, it would have put an end to conversation.
Surrealism has no place in it for God-worship, because it is an exploration
(by definition) of a human-centered adventure. And if you now claim that you
are just "making up Gods to amuse yourself" then you have broken faith with
the notion of what the word "God" represents: the Other, benevolent, capricious,
malevolent, or specious. A God represented as an intellectual plaything is no longer
a God. There are no Gods. There are no Gods.
Even the later Greeks got this far: that these Gods represented an immature
understanding of human emotions and motives. Fascinating tales, every one, but
somehow incomplete in ascribing human existence to the whims of the Other.
Or words to that effect...
Dale Houstman
Brandon J. Freels
of first degree sophism, and being a philodoxer to oriental
commercialization!
What's the point Big Mac?
If no one uses the same words for the same meanings why have conversations
at all?
How can you even understand what I am saying?
Haven't you figured out yet that surrealism is not about nothingness?
I don't even expect a response to this post, knowing that you, with the use
of your own definitions, wont be able to read it.
---BJF
Brandon J. Freels
(dictionary) are very brief and open ended, not nearly finding the scope of
surrealism (i.e. "Like a dream"). It is a shame. I hereby declare that these
definitions must be overcome by the those who have actually investigated to
meaning of the word so that we can avoid any further run-ins with
individuals such as NIk who, forgive the cliche, is a blind man following a
blind man. It was rather disappointing, but correctly interpreted by me, to
read in a personal e-mail from Nik, that he tried to read about the
surrealist movement, but did not complete this task due to boredom. His only
knowledge of surrealism comes from a detective novel writing individual who
tries to mix orientalism with surrealism (what was his name Nik, for in all
of my surrealist investigations I have never heard of him?).
The entire debate of the definition of surrealism is divided into two
parties: those who know, and those who don't. The ones "who don't" make up
there own definitions. They are not seekers of the self, but stubborn
teenagers, denying everything (surrealism does not deny anything, but
accepts the conscious and unconscious together), laughing at
investigation --- and a lack of investigation can only direct you towards
mysticism, and supernaturalism.
---BJF
Nikolaus Maack
Dale Houstman (dale.h...@gte.net) writes:
[Goes off on a tangent from hell...]
Did I say the word apple makes me think of a riding lawn mower? No, I did
not say any such a thing, you weasel. What I am saying is that words do
not link up to experience 100%, as some of you seem to be suggesting.
Forget the fucking God and surrealism debate for a moment and simply
consider how you and that other dimwit go around saying:
"I know what surrealism means and you don't."
Heck, we can't even see the same apple when we say the word apple, so why
should we be able to see the same surrealism when we say the word surrealism?
My point, behind all of this ranting, is that truth ain't out there.
Truth is what you pick and choose. Anyone who waltzes through time and
space saying, "I know the truth," is a lying sack of shit, and should be
killed. What they should say is, "I have a truth that works for me and I
would like to share it with you. Maybe it works for you."
That's all I ever say. I found some shit that works for me.
Of course we can pick and choose our gods. That's what gods are for,
goddamnit. The -- I'm going to say the T word -- Taoist villages in China
pick and choose their gods all the time. Usually the god is based on a
dead village elder. Tributes are made to the god in hopes of getting the
usual things gods give: nice crops, happy babies, etc. If the god screws
up, he gets fired, and they pick a new god.
Philosophies are tools. Gods are tools. If your gof or your philosophy
breaks, you throw it away and get a new one.
> Surrealism has no place in it for God-worship
Translation: "My particular definition of surrealism, which is, of
course, the one and only definition of the word, has no room for gods in
it. If you try to include gods in your definition, you are weakening my
strangle hold on that intangible substance knows as The Truth. I will now
loudly same the same thing over and over again as though this proves that
I know The Truth. There is no God. There is no God. There is no God."
Fine. There is no God. But there also is a God. And there also are ten
thousand blind gods with pitchforks carved out of rancid margarine.
What's your point?
"There is no Dale Houstman. There is no Dale Houstman. There is no Dale
Houstman."
Nikolaus Maack
"Brandon J. Freels" (Fre...@ethergate.com) writes:
> It was rather disappointing, but correctly interpreted by me, to
> read in a personal e-mail from Nik, that he tried to read about the
> surrealist movement, but did not complete this task due to boredom. His only
> knowledge of surrealism comes from a detective novel writing individual who
> tries to mix orientalism with surrealism (what was his name Nik, for in all
> of my surrealist investigations I have never heard of him?).
That's right. I've never read a book in my life. I live in a cave and
read only the words that come to me through telepathy. The reason you've
never heard of the author I mentioned is because he doesn't exist. I made
him up. Just like I made you up. Unfortunately, I've forgotten how to
erase characters that I've created, and you still seem to be here despite
all my best efforts.
And It's true. All that I learned about surrealism I got from a matchbook
cover. It said, "Can you draw this dehydrated chicken? If you can, maybe
you're an artist." I drew the chicken, and was well on my way to becoming
God.
The author, whom I like, is Van de Wetering. He writes zen murder
mysteries set in Amsterdam. The series he does, known as the Grijpstra
and De Grier books, talks about many things, from zen mysticism, to
surrealism. He often blurs the lines between Buddhism, Taoism, zen, and
surrealism. (Obviously this makes him some kind of crackpot looney who
fails to recognize there's no room for God in surrealism. As soon as I
find the time, I'll hunt the bastard down and point this out to him.)
He is an excellent author; I love his stuff; over the last few months I
tore into at least a dozen of his books. I highly recommend his work,
even if you don't like murder mystery fiction.
Ktzoah of Pic
>
> should we be able to see the same surrealism when we say the word surrealism?
beats me.
> My point, behind all of this ranting, is that truth ain't out there.
> Truth is what you pick and choose. Anyone who waltzes through time and
> space saying, "I know the truth," is a lying sack of shit, and should be
> killed. What they should say is, "I have a truth that works for me and I
> would like to share it with you. Maybe it works for you."
So, to paraphrase slightly: "Truth is what you pick and choose. Anyone
who doesn't agree with me on this particular point of abstract philosophy
is a lying sack of shit, and should be killed. They should be thinking
the way I think. Truth is actually what *I* pick and choose for the
rest of the world. Imagine their insolence, disagreeing with me! One
day they shall recognize my true superior genius, and I shall sieze
my rightful position as grand surrealist dictator of the world!"
> That's all I ever say. I found some shit that works for me.
Oh. I must have mis-read you then.
> Philosophies are tools. Gods are tools. If your gof or your philosophy
> breaks, you throw it away and get a new one.
Does this apply to meta-philosophies too? Like, say, the system of
throwing away the philosophies when they break?
_
Brandon J. Freels
"duality."
---BJF
Nikolaus Maack
Ktzoah of Pic (ax...@dhp.com) writes:
> So, to paraphrase slightly: "Truth is what you pick and choose. Anyone
> who doesn't agree with me on this particular point of abstract philosophy
> is a lying sack of shit, and should be killed. They should be thinking
> the way I think. Truth is actually what *I* pick and choose for the
> rest of the world.
Well, no. I'm quite willing to let other people think whatever the hell
they want, so long as they grant me the opportunity to think whatever the
hell I want. (Isn't that goddamn neighbourly of me?) That's the main
benefit of such a belief system, where all things are equally true, and we
all choose our own truths. Everybody gets to be right. Call it the
unitarian perspective, if you'd like. Or maybe it's libertarian. I don't
know.
Where this debate with others breaks down is that they say things like:
"Oh, you go ahead and believe whatever you'd like. We'll allow you to do
that. Just so long as you recognize that you cannot call your beliefs
"surrealist". That's *our* word. You getcher stinkin' fishy fingers off
our fuckin' word, boyo. Don't be calling your God-lovin' Christian Taoist
Buddhist ways surrealism, because you cannot do such a thing and if you
try, you're a crazy man."
Which sort of sucks. It leaves me with the impression that some people
feel they know what The Truth is, and they'd like to share it with me. Of
course, anyone who tries to give out The Truth usually winds up killing
you and burning down your home because you don't like The Truth.
Ironically, the anti-religious types of this newsgroup act very much like
the worst of the religious types I've encountered.
> Oh. I must have mis-read you then.
Looks like it. Try again. Third time's the charm. Next time you read
what I write, keep in mind that I'm not some drunken asshole trying to
rape you in the back of a Chevy. Unless that's what you want to believe,
in which case, call me.
me:
>> Philosophies are tools. Gods are tools. If your god or your philosophy
>> breaks, you throw it away and get a new one.
Pico:
> Does this apply to meta-philosophies too? Like, say, the system of
> throwing away the philosophies when they break?
Presumably. If at any point the philosophy of throwing away philosophies
seems of no use, I can throw it away. Unfortunately, if I do throw away
the philosophy of throwing away philosophies, I would still be actively
using that philosophy. So technically it cannot be thrown away without
causing a paradox of some kind, thus tearing a hole in the collective
unconscious and killing us all.
Brandon J. Freels
>Well, no. I'm quite willing to let other people think whatever the hell
>they want, so long as they grant me the opportunity to think whatever the
>hell I want.
Brandon: You are lying. Do I need to remind you of how you tried to convert
all those high schoolers to your "poetic" technique? (so when is your first
book of poetry coming out, big guy?).
>Where this debate with others breaks down is that they say things like:
>"Oh, you go ahead and believe whatever you'd like. We'll allow you to do
>that. Just so long as you recognize that you cannot call your beliefs
>"surrealist". That's *our* word. You getcher stinkin' fishy fingers off
>our fuckin' word, boyo. Don't be calling your God-lovin' Christian Taoist
>Buddhist ways surrealism, because you cannot do such a thing and if you
>try, you're a crazy man."
Brandon: Unfortunately you just don't get it. If I were to say Buddhism is
building houses, true Buddhists would have no idea what I was talking about.
>Which sort of sucks. It leaves me with the impression that some people
>feel they know what The Truth is.
Brandon: Damn it Nik. You think you know what the TRUTH is. You think you
know what the Truth is when it comes to defining words. SO SHUT THE FUCK
UP!!!
>Ironically, the anti-religious types of this newsgroup act very much like
>the worst of the religious types I've encountered.
Brandon: You obviously haven't encountered the worst of the religious
groups, I mean, do the worst of the religious groups post at a newsgroup and
complain? Because if that as bad as it gets than I've got nothing to worry
about.
Ktzoah of Pic
>
> Well, no. I'm quite willing to let other people think whatever the hell
> they want, so long as they grant me the opportunity to think whatever the
> benefit of such a belief system, where all things are equally true, and we
> all choose our own truths. Everybody gets to be right. Call it the
> unitarian perspective, if you'd like. Or maybe it's libertarian. I don't
> know.
Yes, yes. Everything is true. But that also means everything is false,
and you're just as deluded as everyone else if you think you have a
"belief system" that isn't. But that's a wee bit off-topic here.
Or it would be, except that I am interested in seeing what effect
the violent amplification of the concepts of true and false might have
on surrealism.
> Presumably. If at any point the philosophy of throwing away philosophies
> seems of no use, I can throw it away. Unfortunately, if I do throw away
> the philosophy of throwing away philosophies, I would still be actively
> using that philosophy. So technically it cannot be thrown away without
> causing a paradox of some kind, thus tearing a hole in the collective
> unconscious and killing us all.
pffft! I ate that paradox and his demented sidekick for breakfast
one night a long time ago. There are plenty of holes in the
collective subconscious already, (although most of them are
occupied by badgers, moles, and little uranium-mining elves with
pick-axes) so don't worry about tearing one more.
> Nik
_
Nikolaus Maack
> and you're just as deluded as everyone else if you think you have a
> "belief system" that isn't.
Why can't I walk around knowing everything is true and false at the same
time? It's fun. I like being able to say that everything I believe is
entirely dismissable. Of course, it isn't, because I believe in it.
Right up until I dismiss it.
I have one of those fucked up brains where strange people come up to me
and say, "You know, aliens control everything. They watch us through
spyholes carved into clouds. The aliens and the angels hang out together
and play Yahtzee and eat pizza. They prefer Pizza Hut for some reason.
No one knows why."
And I think, "Sure. Maybe. I mean, why not? It could be true." And
then I realize it's nuts and I shake it off like a dog shaking off water.
But for that instant, I believe. It's fun to believe in things that make
no sense. If a story -- or a supposed "fact" -- sounds good, it may as
well be true, right? If we pretend it's true, it's more entertaining.
Nik
--
"Trying to seperate news from gossip has been a lifetime endeavor and I'm
unconvinced there's any difference. Walter Cronkite just leans over
the country's back fence and tells stories."
--Abbie Hoffman, _Soon_to_be_a_Major_Motion_Picture
Treeclimbr
You know very little of the life of
Breton and Ernst...both were fascinated
with the study of religion, alchemy, etc.
Treeclimbr
four years I've read this newsgroup.
>The entire debate of the definition of surrealism is divided into two
>parties: those who know, and those who don't. The ones "who don't" make up
>there own definitions. They are not seekers of the self, but stubborn
>teenagers, denying everything (surrealism does not deny anything, but
>accepts the conscious and unconscious together), laughing at
>investigation --- and a lack of investigation can only direct you towards
>mysticism, and supernaturalism.
You're really quite the ignorant one when it comes to knowing anything about
Breton and Ernst. Maybe look at the book "Surrealism and the Occult" or
something
of that nature. Please don't rewrite history. People today want to take the
extreme
aetheism of the time and apply it to the movement. It's true the movement was
very
against organized religion but they had much deeper thoughts than knee-jerking
around on this question of religion. When you begin to look at the
Proto-Surrealists,
or the deepest of the poetry of Tzara.....you begin to understand the deepness
of the
movement.
Brandon J. Freels
Treeclimbr wrote:
>You know very little of the life of
>Breton and Ernst...both were fascinated
>with the study of religion, alchemy, etc.
Brandon:
Yes but the study of religion, etc, differs greatly from "believing."
elag
getting angry because Madame Magritte had the effrontery to wear a
crucifix in his presence.
Brandon J. Freels
>You're really quite the ignorant one when it comes to knowing anything
about
>Breton and Ernst. Maybe look at the book "Surrealism and the Occult" or
>something of that nature.
I know the book, but have not read it. A composite world that surrealism
seeks can only be a plural universe, not a dual universe. There is no room
for believing in a heaven, hell, afterlife, or any kind of transcendence
without jumping into a duality. Surrealism says that these two worlds are
one. I am personally interesting in the occult also, but I would never
consider the occult surreal, nor do I think Breton considered Tarot cards
surreal, or palm reading surreal. They are examples of earlier beliefs that
are headed in the surrealist direction (the tarot card in objective chance,
etc).
>Please don't rewrite history. People today want to take the extreme
>atheism of the time and apply it to the movement. It's true the movement
was
>very against organized religion but they had much deeper thoughts than
knee-jerking
>around on this question of religion.
I could simple argue that it is the author of "Surrealism and the Occult"
who is re-writing history. Personally I try to keep my surrealist readings
to documents of the group and of people who were actually there. I know that
in several of the groups (in the UK for example) certain individuals (I
believe it was Gascoyne) were kicked out for mysticism. Surrealism has
always been an atheistic movement. Our times have not changed that for it
was a time of atheists "THEN" --- it was a time of atheists from the
beginning of the movement (does anyone remember Communism?).
---BJF
qagi
> Please don't rewrite history.
Why not?
Nikolaus Maack
> seeks can only be a plural universe, not a dual universe. There is no room
> for believing in a heaven, hell, afterlife, or any kind of transcendence
> without jumping into a duality. Surrealism says that these two worlds are
> one.
You can still play with the symbols in order to say something new.
Believing in them -- either temporarily or permanently -- allows for a
more complex level of play. Heaven and Hell are simply useful symbols,
just like everything else in the world. A symbol is most useful when you
believe in it, or pretend to, and there's really no difference between
pretending to believe and believing, so what the heck, have fun.
For example... Heaven and Hell can be seen as Coke and Pepsi. They
pretty much taste the same, cost the same, and look the same. Hell says
it's for the next generation, and Heaven says it's the classical,
traditional, established choice. Always Heaven. Coke says Pepsi drinkers
will burn eternally in a dark underworld. Angelic polar bears drink Coke.
Pepsi says that Coke drinkers are old fogeys who don't understand
anything. Hip youngsters drink Pepsi.
If you believe in Heaven and Hell, if only for an instant, it might allow
you to understand a few other things as well. I also highly recommend
believing in flying saucers for at least five minutes every day.
> I am personally interesting in the occult also, but I would never
> consider the occult surreal, nor do I think Breton considered Tarot cards
> surreal, or palm reading surreal. They are examples of earlier beliefs that
> are headed in the surrealist direction (the tarot card in objective chance,
> etc).
Tarot might not be surreal, but I agree there is something to learn here.
Tarot cards are useful, in the sense that they are archetypes you can
shuffle up, lay down, and study. They teach you to consider reality in a
symbollic, message-laden light.
"What forces are at work here?" you ask, shuffle, and read.
After a while, the cards become somewhat redundant because you can look at
the world -- which is also made up entirely of symbols, which is
constantly shuffling itself -- and read it like a tarot spread. In other
words, thank you Carl Jung.
The only difference between the world and a deck of tarot cards is you can
hold the world in the palm of your hand. No wait, you can hold the deck
of cards in the palm of your hand. Okay, maybe there is no difference.
Ouija boards are useful to, if you want to talk with your subconscious and
pretend that it's your link to God. Which it is. Or isn't. Or both.
> I could simple argue that it is the author of "Surrealism and the Occult"
> who is re-writing history.
You could also "simple argue" that penguins represent a threat to national
security, and picket the White House for some kind of financial
assistance, so you can start up a penguin slaughter for fun and profit.
(Actually, I would be very pleased if you did this very thing.) Don't
forget to smuggle drugs inside the carcasses of the fallen soldiers,
should any be killed by penguins with machine guns. Would the former
Soviet Union arm penguins with machine guns if the Americans decided to
invade the arctic? I wonder...
>Personally I try to keep my surrealist readings to documents of the
>group and of people who were actually there. I know that in several of the
>groups (in the UK for example) certain individuals (I believe it was
>Gascoyne) were kicked out for mysticism.
Brandon, in all seriousness, why? Why would you want to remain entirely
loyal to a movement that began slightly after WWII? They didn't even have
the internet back then. Why not move your readings up to the present,
experience a few other perspectives. Your loyalty to the good old days
will never be rewarded.
The old school founders are dead and buried. Take what they have to offer
you and move on, man. They have stuff to teach you, yes, absolutely, but
for the love of Art, don't worship them. I think if you hung out with
them back then, trying to worship them, they would have slapped you in the
face and told you to get the fuck out. Use the past. That's what the
past is for. Don't worship it.
Come to think of it, use the past, the present, and the future. Use
everything. That's what everything is for.
Nik
PS.
I'm beginning to suspect I make no sense to anyone but myself. And maybe
not even to me. Oh well. So long as it's all amusing.
Ktzoah of Pic
>
> And I think, "Sure. Maybe. I mean, why not? It could be true." And
> then I realize it's nuts and I shake it off like a dog shaking off water.
>
> But for that instant, I believe. It's fun to believe in things that make
> no sense. If a story -- or a supposed "fact" -- sounds good, it may as
> well be true, right? If we pretend it's true, it's more entertaining.
If you find it entertaining, why not?
So long as you come to that realization before they try to
sell you something.
_
Brandon J. Freels
has some good tracts. So does the Czech and Slav group.
---BJF
elag
I say athiest
let's call the whole thing off...
"Brandon J. Freels" wrote:
> What is with all this anti-athiests garbage. Where did you learn how to
> spell athiest anyway?
Treeclimbr
>Treeclimbr wrote:
>
>> Please don't rewrite history.
>
>
>Why not?
The great godless aetheist early 20th Century and with added with Breton being
so against religion really doesn't thrill me too much. Pure aetheism usually
seems to breed the worse, I'm interested in
a study of surrealism in this context. There needs to be an exact language --
one can be against
a theistic God, can believe in an afterlife, not believe in reincarnation, etc.
I'm saying that this exact language needs to be employed here when discussing
the topic, and, of course, Breton is not all
of Surrealism. I'm sure there will always be the militant aetheistic among us
kicking people out -- whatever. It seems essentially the same in politics as
in art, eventually: the most bloody revolutions/war states of late were
aetheistic. I'm not too impressed by a lot of recent work done since the
original surrealists -- I wonder sometimes if the Surrealists weren't working
with some kind of
afterglow from the era of certain painters that came before, at least the
Pre-Raphealites.
Brandon J. Freels
spell athiest anyway?
Treeclimbr wrote in message <19981123214816...@ng89.aol.com>...
perceptor
> You say aetheist
> I say athiest
> let's call the whole thing off...
>
> "Brandon J. Freels" wrote:
> > What is with all this anti-athiests garbage. Where did you learn how to
> > spell athiest anyway?
At the heist
Dale Houstman
original posting here, so (since his tone demands reply!)
I am hitching on here)
Treeclimbr wrote:
"You know very little of the life of Breton and Ernst...both were fascinated
with the study of religion, alchemy, etc."
**
Sorry to inform you of what should be obvious
by now: I happen
to know quite a lot about Breton and the others. And while you are
correct that they were fascinated by religious imagery and ritual,
they only studied them as aspects of Surrealist desire. They never
believed that the gods behind them were "real" in any sense, and
reviled the entire notion of organized religion, again and again. They
were also attracted to palmists and seers for the same reason: as
examples of primitive Surrealism, and as aspects of the aleatory and
wandering human imagination.
I never said there was no place in Surrealism
for an investigation
of religion and mystical thought, but only for a blind belief in the
desire-tamping gods themselves. When I was younger I truly
was fascinated by Superman comic books, and still
find comic books an exciting medium: I never once believed
in Superman as a "real" being, and would consider an adult who
did to be damaged in some way. This is much how the Surrealists
viewed the faithful.
People are often interested in the trappings of belief
systems,
and why not? They are aspects of human creativity.
Breton says
"Not only must there be an end to the exploitation of man by man,
but also to the exploitation of man by the alleged "God," of absurd
and revolting memory."
"Those who do not violently set themselves against religion, the bogus
God, the parasitic priests - these professors of resignation are
assimilable to the pact with the countless vermin of Christinanity,
vermin which must be exterminated."
"To destroy religion by every means available, to obliterate every
vestige of these monuments of darkness to which men have prostrated
themselves..."
oh yeah! There's a religion lover for you!
Don't take it too unkindly if I suggest that it is you who seem not
to have read or understood much Surrealist thought. I suggest
you read more closely and more extensively.
Dale Houstman
Ktzoah of Pic
>
> What is with all this anti-athiests garbage. Where did you learn how to
> spell athiest anyway?
I like his mis-spellign better than yours. That extra vowel really
gives it an aetheric feel.
> >The great godless aetheist early 20th Century and with added with Breton
> >being
> >so against religion really doesn't thrill me too much. Pure aetheism
> >usually
> >seems to breed the worse, I'm interested in
> >a study of surrealism in this context. There needs to be an exact
Now, I'm just speculating here, taking a stab, talking out of
my hat, floating a hypothesis as it were... but I empathize strongly
with Breton's distaste for religion as it is popularly practiced,
and I have the same distaste for dogmatic atheism as _it_ is
commonly practised. Both are used to constrain people's desiring
minds into narrow little channels of belief. Admittedly, the
atheistic channel may seem wider - especially when you are stuck
in it.
You don't need organized religion to have a "religious" experience.
You don't need to turn your back to the possibilities of the merry
myhologies of all the gods and goddesses that may be alive
somewhere (in the collective unconscious?) just because the
church is a broken, crumbling and corrupt institution of
idological slavery.
So I suspect that if Breton were around today, he might just
direct some of the same invective that he had for Religion
against the modern religion of atheism, and its various
institutions and churches.
:.,$d
> language --
> >one can be against
> >a theistic God, can believe in an afterlife, not believe in reincarnation,
> etc.
> >I'm saying that this exact language needs to be employed here when
> discussing
> >the topic, and, of course, Breton is not all
> >of Surrealism. I'm sure there will always be the militant aetheistic
> among us
> > kicking people out -- whatever. It seems essentially the same in
> politics as
> >in art, eventually: the most bloody revolutions/war states of late were
> >aetheistic. I'm not too impressed by a lot of recent work done since the
> >original surrealists -- I wonder sometimes if the Surrealists weren't
> working
> >with some kind of
> >afterglow from the era of certain painters that came before, at least the
> >Pre-Raphealites.
> >
_
Nikolaus Maack
Dale Houstman (dale.h...@gte.net) writes:
> And while you are
> correct that they were fascinated by religious imagery and ritual,
> they only studied them as aspects of Surrealist desire. They never
> believed that the gods behind them were "real" in any sense, and
> reviled the entire notion of organized religion, again and again.
The key phrase here is of course ORGANIZED RELIGION. Even I tend to be
against that. Dogma makes me nauseated. Organized religions tend to be
certain they've got it right, and the other guy has got it wrong. Then
again, I might stop calling myself a surrealist for the same reason.
"You're a surrealist? Well, that means you're an atheist, right?"
Uh, not exactly.
I think I might just be against organized anything. Four people get
together and start a movement, you just know that eventually they're going
to start assuming they can do no wrong. The Us versus Them mentality
kicks in, and everyone becomes doomed. When it comes to organized groups,
it's my opinion that there ain't that much difference between the Boy
Scouts and the Nazis.
But what I don't get is the implication in these quotes you threw out,
Dale, and by what you're saying, that "belief" is such a dangerous
concept.
"Sure," you seem to be saying, "you can play with the gods, play with
mystical systems, just don't "believe" in them. The gods aren't "real"."
Well, what *is* real? Show me real.
I can believe in the big bearded Christian God today, and talk to him for
a couple of hours, just to see what happens. After that I can go to Satan
and talk to him for a bit. And then maybe I'll ditch them both and go
chat it up with Zeus. Or maybe Odin and Loki. They work for me. Perhaps
Chthulu has something to say of importance. And yes, maybe even Superman
has some words of wisdom. Why can't Superman be real?
As I've said repeatedly, it's my belief that all things are true. Gods
are just symbols, but to say such a thing is pointless, because everything
in reality is a symbol, a message, a small archetype in the big play that
is life. So to say that they are "just symbols" and "not real" is
foolish. The computer I am typing on is "just a symbol" inside my brain.
Any experiences I have with God are also "just symbols" in my skull.
Instead of worrying about believing in the wrong thing, I think it's more
useful to go around potentially believing in everything. Even things that
contradict each other. Or perhaps, ESPECIALLY things that contradict each
other.
> I never said there was no place in Surrealism for an investigation
> of religion and mystical thought, but only for a blind belief in the
> desire-tamping gods themselves.
This is an important distinction to make. I am very irritated when
someone tells me, "If you don't take Jesus into your heart, you're going
to hell."
Well, I've taken Odin into my heart. And occasionally Loki. And
sometimes there are no gods in my heart at all. Does this mean I'm going
to hell?
The rabid christian says, "Yes." There are some sensible Christians out
there who would say no, thank goodness.
Typical Sunday school question asked by know-it-all kids:
"If there's an African tribe way, way in the jungle, and they never even
heard the name Jesus before, and so they're pagan savages, does that mean
they're going to hell?"
Some assholes say yes. Jesus is the only way. And that's the sort of
religious belief that should be stepped on.
Breton:
> "Not only must there be an end to the exploitation of man by man,
> but also to the exploitation of man by the alleged "God," of absurd
> and revolting memory."
It's important to remember that at the time these quotes were made, the
only real religion out there was organized religion. It's my belief that
Breton here is specifically addressing those churches that encourage their
followers not to think. Most people don't get to pick and choose their
gods as they see fit, and that's depressing.
Nik
--
"Dogs are still not children, AND you've managed to look even sillier."
--Grumblefish
Ktzoah of Pic
>
> I know the book, but have not read it. A composite world that surrealism
> seeks can only be a plural universe, not a dual universe. There is no room
> for believing in a heaven, hell, afterlife, or any kind of transcendence
> without jumping into a duality. Surrealism says that these two worlds are
> consider the occult surreal, nor do I think Breton considered Tarot cards
> surreal, or palm reading surreal. They are examples of earlier beliefs that
> are headed in the surrealist direction (the tarot card in objective chance,
> etc).
Hmm... I suspect tarot cards could be a pretty good surrealist
tool, if you had a deck specialized to the purpose.
re heaven and hell implying a duality: not necessarily true.
Surely Africa can be allowed to exist. Africa is not 'here'.
No duality. "cyberspace" might be a better example. People
refer to it as if it's a real place. Does the surrealist
view imply that it does not exist at all? That's fine if it
does... but then where are my words going? Wherever it is,
you'll need some word to describe it.
Anyway, I'm going away now. To the library, to read whatever
they've got on the history of surrealism. Maybe when I come back,
I'll know what I'm talking about.
_
Dale Houstman
> Well, I rightly do not care for the argument any which way anymore; I think
> it is pathetic (for instance) how over on the atheist ng all they can talk
> of is God! It's depressing, the way they try to find logical inconsistencies
> in Genesis for example. What is that all about?
I used the word "organized" in an attempt to get my point across, but (as
the quotes
show) Breton was against the "idea" of religion, of worship of the Other. All
religions
are organized of course, by definition: the word "religion" is related to the
word "legal"
and refers to a set of laws. I have nothing against some loner thinking his
wooden chicken is a deity, although I find it honestly creepy and
self-defeating. But to reduce the idea
of god to an intellectual toy is to be the ultimate fence sitter as far as I
can see. If God
is seen as a creation of man's mind then the word ceases to have any meaning
as it is
been known. It's as though you are afraid to give up your remaining vestige of
deity-
centered life.
But this isn't about intellectual word games: it is about attempting to bring
certain
Orientalisms (among which Christianity is partly one) into the Surrealist
"fold" (as it were)
and their emphasis on a tamping or denial of Desire is unacceptable. Desire is
at the
very heart of the Surrealist adventure: and unfettered Desire at that. A
system of thought (or un-thought) which exists in the main to repress Desire
is not a good fit.
If however, you are willing to define "God" as a castrated puppet that you
keep around
to taunt the stragglers-in-faith with: okay!
Dale Houstman
"it's my opinion that there ain't that much difference between the Boy Scouts
and the Nazis."
I guess I have to wait until the next World War to evaluate this one. If
the Scoutmaster
buys a huge toaster oven, I'm moving to Belgium!
> "Real"? I'm not actually arguing that, I think Brandon covered it
> neurologically quite well. What I was saying is that Breton and the others
> were adventurers in all surrealistic venues; BUT religious "belief" (in that
> it supplants the human with the Other, tamps desire, and demands sacrifice
> to an authority or an ideal of annihilation) is an unbearable condition, and
> must be fought. That's it essentially. "Belief" (or "faith") is dangerous
> because it tempts one to absolve themselves of a fuller engagement with a
> fuller array of sensations and desires by placing the Other in the way. It
> is the manifestation and agency of repression. The history of religion is a
> dirty joke on its believers which they seem unable to grasp the punchline
> of.
> "Why can't Superman be real?"
Uhhh... Because he isn't?
"It's my belief that all things are true. Gods are just symbols, but to
say such a thing is pointless, because everything in reality is a symbol, a
message, a small archetype in the big play that is life. So to say that they
are "just symbols" and "not real" is foolish. The computer I am typing on is
"just a symbol" inside my brain."
There is no good in arguing with such a vague and disturbing view; the
computer you are typing on may be a symbol in your brain (although there
aren't really symbols in the brain), but the one I am receiving a message from
exists outside your comprehension of it. When you leave your home in the
morning, there is every possibility in the world that that "symbol" may be
stolen even while you are not thinking of it, by a person who sees in it
something entirely different than you do. When you come home and see it is
gone, all the projection in the world will not replace that real object. You
shall have to go and buy another one. It exists quite apart from your
apprehension of it.
But really, enough! Your ideas are clouds upon smoke, but I don't care
what you choose to semi-believe in. One cannot argue finally with ideas that
are not open to
investigation, but attempt to encompass everything in such tautologies and
vagaries as the drifting cortex can manufacture. If you really can say
(without actually believing) that god is something you can talk to in the
morning while tickling Satan's ass with your prehensile
tail in the afternoon, and somehow all of this everything is essentially
nothing, and that you
believe in believing in everything (Nazism? Phrenology? Beating the insane
with rug swats?
Mormonism? Capitalism? Cappuchino baboon vegan theodolites?) then you are (in
fact)
quite beyond the pale of language and thought. If you are happy there, so be
it...
Dale Houstman
>
Dale Houstman
Ktzoah,
I am an atheist, and I agree with you that the organized branch is pathetic: as I
said elsewhere; it is depressing to see how much atheists feel the need to talk
about
God!
But atheism, no matter how organized, can not be a religion, and one cannot have
religious experiences without organized religion. This is simply due to the
nature of the word "religion" itself. It is related to the word "legal" and
refers to a set of laws. now I don't argue that atheist groups can be dry as shit
on a summer day, and incredibly stupid in their intellectual obviousness, but
(unless you count "don't believe in god" as a terribly binding law for one who is
seeking to not believe in God) there are really no moral precepts or tablets
being passed about. Thus it is not a religion. A terrible waste of human
cognition, maybe, but not a religion.
Breton didn't die in that different a time; the 1960's, and he hadn't changed his
mind about religion, and he had always despised stupidity and dumb herding
mentalities, so if he
did entertain an opinion on some atheist group, he might be revolted by their
rather
pedestrian approaches, and to their narrow scope of rhetoric. Atheists spend
entirely too much time trying to argue the faithful out of their skins with very
uncompelling arguments, and not enough time exploring human desire unfettered by
God's filthy image. But... that's them. But I am not particularly arguing about
the worth of "spiritual" or ecstatic experience (I've had my share), but only
about the undeniable fact that Surrealism has no place for deity worshippers, or
even those who claim to hold god at arm's-length while amusing themselves with
the possibilities. It seems to me that there is more important (and certainly
fresher) work to be done. The Greeks created a Pantheon that they came to view as
merely literary. The Romans almost disbelieved at the moment they were
metastasizing the entire notion of gods. I don't see why we cannot match that
disbelief and move on to explorations of the very human mind that created all
that. A little peek behind the veil for once.
Dale Houstman
Dale Houstman
Dale Houstman
Brandon J. Freels
>Hmm... I suspect tarot cards could be a pretty good surrealist
>tool, if you had a deck specialized to the purpose.
Brandon: I don't know if it was tarot cards or just playing cards, but I
know that Breton and a few others (Calas?) made a deck of surrealist cards.
WEBmadman
As a surrealist (and, frankly, I don't care who thinks I'm not being "true" to this term or not) I aim to externalise the internal processes by any means possible.
As for follow the leader games, try this on;
"Breton is my shepard, he leads me to the path of righteousness..."
Personally, I follow none but my desire, and for this, I claim myself surreal.
Love and Groovyness,
WEBmadman
Dale Houstman
I can inform you quite firmly that Breton is not my god, and (in fact)
was not a god
to the Surrealists, all of whom found plenty of ways to piss off the old
guy
at one point or another; by being gay, or abusing drugs, or selling to
the trades,
or going Communist or leaving Communism at the wrong times, etc.
Of course, one can be a Surrealist without any mincing obsequiousness
before Andre,
but I don't think that's really been the point here. The question is
what is the nature
of Surrealism? What is the nature of Religion? Can these two be
combined?
You answer it yourself when you say you follow none but your own desire.
since
that is precisely what you define being a surrealist as (quite correctly
if incompletely)
then you must realize that since all religions ("sets of rules") exist
to control and
tamp that desire, a desire for religion is self-demolishing. It is a
perversion of desire.
Glove and Loquaciousness
Dale
Dale Houstman
We've had this discussion before; there is a big difference between a group
of people visualizing the word "apple" as (alternately) green and big, red
and
small, logo for Beatles records, etc. & a person hearing thr word apple
and thinking "Moscow toggle switch" which (in the context of a cognitive
test) is madness!
But if you think all things are equal to one another you can't read this
message
anyway. And why respond at all? Isn't anyone else's response as good, so
let others do your work for you.
Why do you even have a name? It doesn't delineate anything does it?
Why not post your messages using a can of hairspray instead of a computer?
The sad thing is, you know full well that not all things are equal, (you are
confusing physical reality with aesthetic ratios) and you're just covering
up some cognitive weakness by a rather disingenuous semi-thought.
Dale Houstman
Nikolaus Maack
Yup.
> But if you think all things are equal to one another...
Did I ever say that? I did not say that. All philsophies are equally
true. All opinions are equally true. All perceptions are equally true.
Even if you happen to be a gibbering lunatic who sees invisible
grasshoppers jumping inside every lightbult, maybe it's true. And if
you're truly far gone, utterly out to lunch, no one will be able to
convince you otherwise, so it may as well be true.
To paraphrase George C Scott in the movie "They Might Be Giants": "Don
Quixote used to attack windmills with his lance because he thought the
windmills were giants. Well, who are we to tell him he's wrong? They
might be giants!"
With less extreme examples, this idea makes more sense: a behaviorist, who
believes in a STIMULUS --> RESPONSE scenario, where all human beings are
conditioned by their environment, is 100% correct. Then again, so is a
humanist, who argues that all human beings are striving to reach some
great inner potential. And Freud's 100% right too: all human beings are
being controlled by primitive sexual urges that they repress thanks to
social programming.
All philosophies -- and all the opposing philosophies -- are true. All
interpretations of reality are legitimate.
And believe me, if I believed I could use a can of hairspray to log on to
the internet, I'd be doing it right now.
> Why do you even have a name?
Why does anything have a name? It's a desperate attempt by humanity to
nail things down. To define something is to attempt to cage it. Which
reminds me, I had another interesting thought about art and human
experience the other day. It's not a new idea, I'd imagine...
Art is an attempt, more often than not, to add structure to reality, to
make sense of the things around us. For example, a play takes the spoken
word, removes all the "hum, um, uh, hmmm" stuttering, and creates a
logical progession for the words. The dialogue is going somewhere,
building to something, has a beginning which leads to a logical end.
Real life ain't art, for most people. (It would be more fun if we all
treated our lives as a play, but that's just my opinion.) Most
conversations natter about, never getting anywhere. People have
difficulty communicating with each other. They repeat themselves
constantly, telling the same stories over and over in an attempt to hone
in on some opinion they can call truth.
Memory, another aspect of life that art attempts to fix, is totally
screwy. People change their memories daily. And I think the Satanic
Ritual Abuse stuff -- where people seem to be creating memories of
horrific abuse or memories of alien abduction out of thin air -- indicates
that memories can even be created out of nothing. We believe what we
choose to believe.
"Did that really happen, or did I dream it?"
The answer to that question decides my fate.
I think the consciousness, the sentience, the supposed logical thought
processes that human beings think they posess are actually muddled,
jumbled, confused clutching at straws. We are all crazy, dreaming,
lunatic sheep. Humans are lost. They use art to help themselves stand
up.
Art, philosophy, film, books, are all an attempt at structuring our
experiences. We want life to make sense. We want our romances to be
grand and sweeping. We want our adventures to be sensical and extreme,
with clear cut values. "I am the good guy and you are the bad guy."
Most people seem to think they construct their philosophies from logic.
"I am a rationalist," says the man, "because rationalism is true."
"I am a Christian," says someone else, "because Christianity is true."
Well, everything is true, if you believe it. Choose the philosophy that
works for you, that makes you the most happy, and discover this is a more
honest way of choosing what to believe. After all, if you go around
believing that your philosophy is true, and the philosophies of everyone
else are twaddle, you're eventually going to get into a fist fight.
And when I say choose what makes you "most happy," you have to understand
there are degrees of happiness. I imagine the Jews fleeing Nazi Germany
were happier than the Jews who got killed. Sure, as they fled they
weren't smiling and singing and dancing, but they were happy not to be
dead. And charity, helping your fellow man, and those other acts of
kindness, all stem from a desire to be happy and at peace with the world.
We assist each other because it makes us feel good. There is no nobility
in being miserable.
Anyhow, the philosophy I like to carry around is treating life as art.
What happens if we say, "Enough with the chaotic gibberish already, I am
going to perceive my reality as a highly symbollic art work in progress"?
What happens then? Well, when we choose to believe a philosophy, choose
to perceive things in a certain way, it becomes true. Suddenly your life
will make sense, if you can actually digest this idea and make it yours.
Now everything is a logical progression towards some great artistic climax
down the line. Everything contains a symbollic message for you, the star
and the reader, the actor and the director. Ordinary events become
literary symbols to be interpreted. What does it mean when someone steals
one of your shoes and hides it? What does it mean when the manuscript of
your novel -- the pages of which you'd foolishly forgotten to number --
gets shuffled by an annoying person? What does it mean when you wake up
to the sound of children playing in the street? (These are events that
have happened to me.)
Everyone needs a philosophy to interpret the world. I find looking at
these events artistically, aesthetically, gives me the most pleasure.
Also, there is drama in helping my fellow human beings. I like the
randomness of giving a homeless person spare change on the street. I
wonder where the bum goes with it. It would be interesting to follow them
and watch. There is beauty in saving people from death. Nothing is more
gorgeous than pulling a half-dead person out of a burning car. When life
is art, all life becomes sacred. Every character has a destiny to be
fulfilled.
It's probably important to remember that if you're the star of your life,
other people are the stars in theirs. If you, Dale, are a minor character
in my existence, I am also a minor character in yours.
I like Oscar Wilde a lot, and the lifestyle of an aesthete. Does it show?
Someone called me a sophist. Yes, the prettiest words are best. Because
life is art, and beauty is king. The interesting trick is that everything
-- even ugliness -- can be beautiful. That's how art works.
Nik
--
"And there's no difference between a 5 gallon container and a standard
beverage glass if both happen to contain 8oz of water, right?"
--Michael T. Richter
Dale Houstman
> "That's all I ever say. I found some shit that works for me."
Since you have de-volved into hysterical name-calling (which I cannot
understand
since if "all things are equally true" then what Brandon and I say must be
equally
true as anything you say, so what's the hissy fit all about?): I'd like to say
this to
that:
I am glad you found some shit that works for you, but did you have to
replace
your brains with such a small spoonful of it?
Dale Houstman
Dale Houstman
"Dale Houstman (dale.h...@gte.net) writes:Since all statements are "equally true" I don't have to prove anything: all
> Since you have de-volved into hysterical name-calling...I wish you'd quoted where I'd done this, because I don't remember doing
it."
I have to do (by your own standard) is claim it to be true, and you (by your
own standard) must accept it. How do you know you're correct?
But since I don't believe you actually care about
your "little blunder of
a philosophy" anyway, I'll post your statements again. They occured
within
the week, so your tenuous hold on reality had obviously begun to decay
your memory centers. But not to worry: nothing is everything!
***
Here, straight copy: Did I say the word apple makes
me think of a riding lawn mower? No, I did not say any such a thing,
you weasel.
Sunday 8:43.
Here, straight copy: "To quote some damn fool:
"Can you call yourself a Christian if you don't believe in Christ?"
Sat 2:45
****
And I repeat my question: if (as you did say) everything
is equally true, then
why are you denying that our statements are true, why are you so worked
up
over statements that are equally true? Why would it make any difference
to
you? If all statements are equally true, then why do you ask me to
prove
that you said what I said you said, since my statement about your statements
must be as true as your denial of them?
Your philosophy is untenable and the result of soft brain tissues softening
even further.
You cannot support a belief system that you deny by your very support
of that
system; why deny any statement made about your system, if you already
have
deemed it to be equally true?
A stupid glitch in an otherwise perfectly idiotic notion... A shame.
And you were
so close to being perfectly imperfect. You're a living tautology...
Dale Houstman
Nikolaus Maack
I wish you'd quoted where I'd done this, because I don't remember doing
it. If you have the time, could you go back and find it for me, and quote
it? I usually do my best to avoid this sort of thing, but occasionally
passion overwhelms me.
Hey, at least I didn't call you a child molestor, like Brandon called me.
Or did I call you one? Who can remember these things.
> since if "all things are equally true" then what Brandon and I say must
>be equally true as anything you say, so what's the hissy fit all about?)
The hissy fit is about how I am quite willing to allow you to believe
whatever you'd like, but you're unwilling to grant me the same courtesy.
Yes, you are both right. So am I. Life is diverse enough to allow us
both to exist. Ain't that a kicker?
>I am glad you found some shit that works for you, but did you have to
>replace your brains with such a small spoonful of it?
I'm glad you resisted the urge to call me names, thus providing me with an
example to live up to.
Nik
--
"Everyone knows you can't by votes when theres no money to get bought."
--Michael Laidlaw
Andrea Chen
>
> All this bullshit about everything being true can be found in any high
> school philosophy book under the word SOPHISM. I believe Socrates said
> something about them.. The idea is rather false since if every idea is
> true and I have the idea that "everything is false" those who say
> everything is true must accept my idea that everything is false,
> therefor contradicting there original claim, and ruling it false.
>
Brandon:
I don't believe everything is true. But I don't think you can disprove
it with your use of formal logic. For example you may be both brave and
cowardly, kind and cruel, hot and cold. In the real world, things are
often BOTH x and not x. Now to a certain degree this can be resolved by
more precise definition, but there are very real practical limits to
this (unless one wants to accept plausible sounding models which is what
many people do because they can't deal with ambiguity) because many
events are very complex and unknown. This is why many people reject the
possibility of objectivity. I disagree with this believing that it's
possible to get (at least) approximations that are better than others
and to move to new levels which incorporate varying views, but at this
point we're beyond simple logics and into the complex mechanisms that
make up things like science (the most sophisticated "truthfinding"
mechanism in existence, but very imperfect.) Your intuitive sense of
this is seen in your use of the term "rather false" (there is no such
thing in formal logic (though some fuzzy logics might employ an
equivalent)).
To jump back to logic, the individual who claims that everything is
true is also likely to claim that everything is also false. This is in
fact an interesting perspective and has uses (it is indeed a part of
Taoist logics which would also suggest that pure Yin becomes Yang and
vice versa). It renders your approach unpersuasive to that individual.
And since surrealism was to a degree a rejection of rationalism and the
stiff, stern realities of the middle class, you may find yourself on the
opposite side (spiritually at least) with many in the movement.
Nikolaus Maack
[Debating with Dale...]
I said:
>> I wish you'd quoted where I'd done this, because I don't remember doing
>> it.
Dale Houstman (dale.h...@gte.net) gets all snotty and says:
> Since all statements are "equally true" I don't have to prove
> anything:
Show me where I asked you to "prove" it. I said I don't remember doing
it, so I would liked you to show it to me. I was quite willing to
entertain the truth that I called you a fool and a weasel. In fact, I was
pretty certain I had done so. I just wanted to see WHERE it was I'd done
it.
>all
>I have to do (by your own standard) is claim it to be true, and you (by your
>own standard) must accept it. How do you know you're correct?
All things being true doesn't mean I have to accept your truth, does it?
Pay attention as I repeat myself: we pick and choose our truths, but
everything is equally true. Yes, whatever you say is true, but then it's
up to me to choose MY truths, and perhaps I won't choose to believe
whatever it is you're saying. Your truth, which is true, isn't
necessarily my truth, which is also true.
Does that make sense to you? There is THE TRUTH. (Which I argue doesn't
exist, sort of. More on that in a bit.) Then there is YOUR TRUTH which is
true, and then there is MY TRUTH which is also true. When truth attempts
to leap across boundries, that's where we have problems. What I am saying
is each subjective reality is real and valid.
The problem here is you're trying to use logic and rationalism on a
philosophical position that is based on artistic principles.
If everything is true, you say, then it logically follows that I must
accept everything you say as truth.
Well, sure, if you insist that I use logic. I will accept everything you
say as a form of truth. Your truth. Unless you are deliberately lying,
and don't believe your own words, then presumably you are telling your
version of the truth, right? And that truth is equally applicable to the
universe as my own truth. Why not? Does that mean I have to believe
everything you believe? No. It just means I have to give your beliefs
some respect.
Think of it like this: an anthropologist goes to some obscure corner of
the world and is faced with a tribe of some kind. Our anthropologist is
going to live with these people for a year or two. Does he constantly
question whether or not the tribe's approach to reality is valid or not?
No. The anthropologist simply takes notes on it, studies it, tries to
understand it. At no point should the scientist say, "Yeah, Mugwanda,
that's kind of interesting, but it's full of crap. There isn't a spirit
world, voodoo doesn't work, and your tribe is stupid."
Another example:
It's a rather common factoid that eye-witness reports are unreliable.
Five people witness a robbery, and the five people each report a different
series of events. The robber was tall -- no he was short -- no he was
medium height. He was fat -- no thin -- no average weight.
Does one of these people have to be right? Is it possible that they are
all wrong? Or is it possible, as I would postulate, that they are all
right?
An objectivist would argue that we should go with what the security camera
shows. That one is the truth. Sure, okay, for the purposes of solving
the crime, go with the camera. For the purposes of art, philosophy, and a
pleasant life, take the position that the camera is just another
eye-witness. We now have 6 viewers of the event, and all 6 are equally
true.
Now, you will say, the camera is obviously the REAL truth. Which causes
me to say, what is real? And then you get upset and I remind you we are
in the surrealism newsgroup. Does REAL matter? Maybe. Maybe not. Is
objective reality the TRUE reality? Or is subjective reality the TRUE
reality? I guess that's where this debate is centred.
I'm well aware that there are flaws in the "everything is true" statement.
But it has useful applications. There are flaws in all philosophies. If
I was going to attempt solving a crime, I would have to weigh various
reports and choose the one that seems most likely. I would have to strive
to be objective. If I'm going to paint, write, and fart around with
artistic stuff, I can believe anything I'd like, so long as it gives me
pleasure and is of some use to me.
See, all things being true, all philosophies become useful and real. It's
an approach that allows me to choose what approach I want to use in a
given situation. Sometimes it pays to act like a behaviorist -- say, if
you want to help someone quit smoking -- and sometimes it pays to act like
a humanist -- if you're trying to help a friend feel better after some
kind of personal tragedy.
Choose the truth system that works best. A die-hard behaviorist would
argue that his approach is THE TRUTH. A die-hard humanist would argue
that her approach is THE TRUTH. I find it more convenient to say, "Yes,
you're both right, and I will pick whichever approach I think is most
useful, given the circumstances that I am in."
Make sense?
> But since I don't believe you actually care about your "little
>blunder of a philosophy" anyway
That's as good a name for it as any. Little Blunder. Now it has a name.
I guess that makes me a Little-Blunderist -- or just Blunderist for short
-- and not a surrealist after all. Hurray for me. Hmm. I kind of like
that. Blunderist.
Dale quotes me unto myself:
> Here, straight copy: Did I say the word apple makes me think of a riding
> lawn mower? No, I did not say any such a thing, you weasel.
> Sunday 8:43.
Okay. I stand by that. And I think you even agreed you are a weasel, so
we can move on.
Dale quotes me unto myself:
> Here, straight copy: "To quote some damn fool: "Can you call yourself a
> Christian if you don't believe in Christ?"
> Sat 2:45
Are you the only fool that said this? I don't think so. Many fools in
this newsgroup have said this. If you insist that you are the only fool
that said it, I will agree with you, for the sake of moving things along.
> And I repeat my question: if (as you did say) everything is equally
>true, then why are you denying that our statements are true, why are you
>so worked up over statements that are equally true?
I believe I already answered this, but I guess you were so busy trying to
prove you're not a fool that you forgot. I gladly accept your reality.
You are welcome to believe ANYTHING you'd like. What I want in return is
some courtesy. Allow me to believe whatever it is that I'd like. We each
have a truth that is equally meaningful. Look, I'll lay it out as bare as
I can:
You: "There is no place for religion in surrealism."
True.
Me: "Religion and mysticism add useful elements to surrealism."
Also true.
How can this be? You are not me, and I am not you.
Because I am an open-minded creature, quite willing to listen to logic,
reason, and most importantly, words of beauty, I will happily entertain
your position. Tell me more. How does your position assist you? If it
seems to me that your position is useful, and adds important elements to
reality, I will adopt your position, or whatever parts of your position
seem useful.
On the other hand, if you argue from a position that your point of view is
RIGHT and my point of view is WRONG, why should I listen to you?
Obviously we are both right.
Internet debates are boring. There used to be a time when I really
enjoyed a nice flame war and we all got down in the mud and threw globs of
muck at one another. Now it just seems tedious. It never resolves
anything. People always argue that they are right and the other guy is
wrong. It is much more useful to argue that both sides are both right,
but that perhaps one position is more useful than the other.
Dale Houstman
All you say may be true and false. But the point here is that Nik
is making such a fuss over our statements claiming his statements
are incorrect. Why? He specifically states that all "statements"
are equally true, so why is he so upset by our statements that he
has now de-volved into name-calling as a defense? If Nik really
believed this (to me) palpable nonsense, then he would sit quietly
in his room with the world buzzing about his head like a blow fly.
It's his false faith I find appalling: it is obvious that he is making a
big stink over a system he himself doesn't believe. His actions
speak volumes... well... pamphlets.
This belief in the total equivalence of every statement may be "true"
(and let's not get into the definition of Truth), but (for a human who has
to put on his clothes and got to work every day) it is worse than useless,
and (if it comes up against organized evil) even dangerous. It is precisely
the sort of anchorless "I'm okay Jake" mummery that creates the Good
German complex, and is (philosophically) untenable. It almost is a definition
of navel-gazing self-involvement. A recipe for lay-downism.
But Nik refuses to lay down.
Dale Houstman
Dale Houstman
"Show me where I asked you to "prove" it."
it?"
Wed 20:08
You don't use the word "prove" (nitpicker) but this is what you
are asking me
to do...
****
The rest of your post is the same old dreary know-nothing disguised
as a belief-system. You are worse than any Christian; at least they
believe in something, you believe in nothing as everything.
I've had it with you: you are dense as lead donkey.
goodbye
Dale Houstman
Nikolaus Maack
Andrea Chen (fallin...@earthlink.net) writes:
> To jump back to logic, the individual who claims that everything is
> true is also likely to claim that everything is also false. This is in
> fact an interesting perspective and has uses (it is indeed a part of
> Taoist logics which would also suggest that pure Yin becomes Yang and
> vice versa).
What you've added to this debate is useful, but watch out when you start
talking about Taoism (the T-word). Certain individuals don't enjoy
entertaining other perspectives on reality. Keep it up and Brandon might
try to kick you out of the newsgroup. *snicker*
> And since surrealism was to a degree a rejection of rationalism and the
> stiff, stern realities of the middle class, you may find yourself on the
> opposite side (spiritually at least) with many in the movement.
Yes, it was always my understanding that surrealism was meant to be a form
of rebellion, an attempt at jarring people into full consciousness, a way
of getting people to question their everyday lives. So it would seem odd
when followers of surrealism start treating their own philosophy as
something unquestionable and carved in stone. To do so it to wind up
being the very thing they're trying to change.
Nikolaus Maack
[I've decided to add a large element of burlesque comedy to the
proceedings. Dale is getting pompous and I want to balance that out by
going in the opposite direction. Brace yourself.]
Dale says:
> But Nik refuses to lay down.
You haven't even bought me dinner yet, you naughty weasel.
Dale then tries to bring the game to an end:
>The rest of your post is the same old dreary know-nothing disguised
>as a belief-system. You are worse than any Christian; at least they
>believe in something, you believe in nothing as everything.
Nothing AND everything, Dale.
Didn't have the patience to read my post, eh, foolish weasel? Damn. My
fault. I should have made it more entertaining. If it didn't suck in
even a foolish weasel, and keep the weasel amused to the end, then
obviously I've failed as a writer. Ah well. Maybe I should have added
more tits. Yes, from now on, all my philosophical ramblings will contain
at least three sex scenes, thrown in at random.
Susan lay back on the sofa, the moist pink hole of her cunt winking at
James as she playfully opened and closed her legs. Now you see it -- the
wet, tight passage gleaming in the dim light -- now you don't. The curly
hairs of her pubic mound were a dark blonde, her breasts a creamy white.
Like two dew-kissed strawberries, the nipples glowed red and wet. Her
tits were the size of baseballs, the nips jutting up and out, pointing at
James' mouth, as if encouraging him to move forward and suck on them.
Susan was a slut, a bad girl, a sex object. James knew exactly the kind
of fucking she required. He had to take her roughly, grabbing the long
blonde hair on the back of her head, forcing her mouth down on to his
swelling prick. She had to be used. Nothing else would satisfy her.
Oh, and Dale said:
>I've had it with you: you are dense as lead donkey.
I see. How dense is this lead donkey? Is it solid lead, or hollow? If
hollow, what is inside the donkey? Air? Chocolate fudge and almonds?
Who designed the donkey? Is it a well-known artist, or some nobody? Is
it a surrealist donkey? A cubist donkey? Would it go for 71 million
dollars in an auction? I would not mind being compared to such a donkey,
no matter how dense it was.
Should I have specified what sort of weasel you are? Would that have
taken some of the sting out of my vicious and unprovoked attack upon you?
"My lord! He called me a fool and a weasel! There is no communicating
with this man. He has gone insane; it's as simple as that. Out
of control. The conversation cannot continue.
"Reminds me of boys I saw in the Vietnam war. One minute they're fine,
walking ahead of you in the swampy grass, the next minute they're naked,
trying to have sex with a dead water-buffalo. I had to kill many a man
under my command, just to keep the rest of us alive.
"I remember when Jimmy Smitz -- a fine boy, good American -- insisted that
a decomposed buffalo he'd come across was Marilyn Monroe. 'Come on,
fellows!' he called out to the rest of us. 'We'll all take turns. When
are we going to get another opportunity like this?' That poor son of a
bitch. I had to put a bullet in the back of his head before he even had
the condom on."
James grasped a handful of Susan's hair, twisting it around his fingers,
yanking on it hard. Susan let out a shrill gasp of pain, but her eyes
narrowed in pleasure, her pouting mouth broadening into a delighted grin.
"You like it when I hurt you," James said. Susan nodded her head as much
as she could. "You like it when I push you around," James continued.
"When I make you my bitch." Again, Susan nodded. She looked down at
James' swollen prick.
"Is that for me?" she whispered. "It's so big. And it looks like a
weasel."
Andrea Chen
>
> Andrea Chen:
>
> All you say may be true and false. But the point here is that Nik
> is making such a fuss over our statements claiming his statements
> are incorrect. Why?
I wasn't talking to Nik. Claims such as all things are equally true
bore me and I have found it useless to try and engage in serious
dialogue with their proclaimers who are likely to move onto something
else rather quickly. I was playing rather hurriedly with the realities
of logic and I was dealing with Brandon.
However your "why?" does point I tried to indicate. Nik isn't
particulary interested in your or Brandon's idea of truth. He can play
all day with his statements and even find some justification (certainly
SOME of what he, you and everyone else says is true and from an
individual angle we all tend to regard our views as true, there are so
many angles of argument), but in fact if he does as you claim (falls
back to insult) he isn't going to bother. You are dealing with a social
mechanism here, Nik has you hooked (with irritation), now he keeps your
attention by bating you. You will (if you don't relax and detach)
continue a dialogue which you can't win (from Nik's viewpoint which is
the one which is bothering you) and which seems to become increasingly
frustrating. This a "truth" (or more accurately a likely truth since I
haven't studied the situation enough to see if it fits this common
pattern.)
>He specifically states that all "statements"
> are equally true, so why is he so upset by our statements that he
> has now de-volved into name-calling as a defense?
See above.
> If Nik really
> believed this (to me) palpable nonsense, then he would sit quietly
> in his room with the world buzzing about his head like a blow fly.
> It's his false faith I find appalling: it is obvious that he is making a
> big stink over a system he himself doesn't believe. His actions
> speak volumes... well... pamphlets.
>
And they are a common social mechanism. Surrealism was at least
theoretically concerned with uncovering unconscious drives and by
implications the social mechanisms they engendered. In this case you
are mixing logical types, you are arguing on one level and Nik on
another.
> This belief in the total equivalence of every statement may be "true"
> (and let's not get into the definition of Truth), but (for a human who has
> to put on his clothes and got to work every day) it is worse than useless,
> and (if it comes up against organized evil) even dangerous.
I will tend to agree with you here. But my point was the complexity
and limits of logics when faced with the real world. It was an attempt
to suggest that "truth" (while I think it exists approximately) involves
a multitude of approaches. William James is the philosopher who comes
to mind when I think of this attitude, Kuhn and Popper on science also
have important ideas.
> It is precisely
> the sort of anchorless "I'm okay Jake" mummery that creates the Good
> German complex, and is (philosophically) untenable.
I think the "good German" attitude has a somewhat different basis. It
wasn't (IMO) relativistic, but based on respect for authority. Here you
are (I think) muddling 2 very different tendencies. (1) Respect for
authority (and fear) don't challenge evil. (2) Moral relativism doesn't
challenge evil.
The results are the same but the causes are different. This kind of
complexity is what I meant to suggest to Brandon. Not that I believe he
is incapable of dealing with it, I suspect he does all the time, I
simply felt from the (1) post in question he was giving too much
authority too certain tools which can be rigid, misrepresent many
complex layered social realities and be as damaging to truth as a pure
relativism. Think how many (often sincerely believed) lies are
justified by an absolute either/or.
>It almost is a definition
> of navel-gazing self-involvement. A recipe for lay-downism.
>
Yes. Except not almost.
> But Nik refuses to lay down.
>
Apparently. Don't exist people to be consistent with their alleged
beliefs. It's frustrating and can lead to the "double binds" which
Bateson (whose theories RD Laing borrowed) claimed were a cause of
madness. I would suggest that Nik has given you a sampling of how this
works. If it follows usenet patterns both sides will soon be trading
mostly insults because the issues are not "truth" but ego.
Exploring this kind of behavior was one of the agendas in the neu
neutopian movement. Bill Cleere's latest commentary on "Usenet
controversy" (if I have the thread name right) in alt.pouting.sandwich
gives a brief review of what the neu neutopian movement referred to as
"buttons." Consciously or unconsciously (or more likely a mixture of
both) Nik seems to be using them successfully on you.
Andrea Chen
>
> Dale Houstman wrote:
> >
> >
> >
>but in fact if he does as you claim (falls
> back to insult)
Dale:
Actually going back and looking at some of the earlier posts in this
thread I would note that not only Nik but someone else has resorted to
insult (a spoonful of brains comes to mind.)
I also do find that Nik did make a number of valid points. Like you
I'm a bit uncomfortable with the extreme relativism he seems to imply
(this is a common fault in postmodernism with similar behaviors dating
even further back all the way (at least) to the romanticism of Byron).
I also agree with your general drift and see that you are able to see at
least some of the complexity I have stressed.
I do also have sympathy for aspects of Nic's position. One reason I
somewhat dislike the early surrealists was Breton's attempt at autocracy
(yet his doctrines were not consistent leaving us to ask which Breton?)
And during the time period when he was active many works labeled
surrealist by the critics of that time were not consistent with any of
his doctrines. Also if I remember correctly the term was originally
coined by Appolinaire who gave it a meaning quite different than
Breton's.
Now if I understand Nic correctly he has roughly argued that the term
surrealism isn't simply a historical footnote, but a living term (and
many do identify with it) which he can chose to redefine in his image.
This is somewhat consistent with the smashing of icons which surealism
(like so many other artistic movements) appeared to embrace. IMO Nik's
position is legitimate and justified by artistic tradition. It is a
rejection of rigididity and heirarchy though it muddles things by
leading to several definitions of surrealism (which must then be
specified, but many words have multiple definitions)
I was interested in your statement that unless used as a poetic
metaphor "an apple as a lawnmower" is an indication of mental
dysfunction (with the implication that this is bad). Now there are many
people who would argue that art and artistic perception should not be
separated from daily living and perception. In other words these wild
and zany (if not quite understandable) visions should not be isolated in
poems and universities. IMO this is a legitimate position and
consistent with the spirit (or that part of the spirit which attracts
me) of surrealism.
And in this particular case Nik's relativism is (I think) correct.
It's an aesthetic choice, artists and experiencers of art do chose
positions consistent with their temperment and the (chose your word)
they are trying to (develop, create understand, explore...)
As for positions Nik seems to take elsewhere on the general nature of
reality, my own tendency is to side with you. But also remember that
this conversation is of the sort that pushes people to extremes so more
calmly Nic might qualify his acceptance of all ideas or add things like
"my view of reality says that there are certain ideas (such as Jews are
parasites and must be destroyed) that must be opposed" that would move
him to a position that you and I would find more justified. Or Nic may
simply be bating you and trying to make the (extremist) point on the
need to smash all doctrine. Or for various reasons he may be unable to
logically (though not necessarily in his actions) be incapable of
accepting the complexity of true and not true. Certainly as a debating
position it gives him certain advantages since it seems to bring a
degree of serenity.
To me the really important truth (as I said in the previous post) is
that you're locked in an endless loop and exemplifying the event
encompassed in Godwin's law (I would say "good German" is close enough
to "Nazi") which would indicate that little or no more useful
information will be exhibited in this thread (unless someone like me
intervenes.)
Dale Houstman
"Actually going back and looking at some of the earlier posts in this
thread I would note that not only Nik but someone else has resorted to
insult (a spoonful of brains comes to mind.)" ***
That comment was only posted in response to several previous insults by the selff-important Nik, who then lied about having said them, then lied about his asking me to prove that he had said them; this is relativism as a postive evil. In other words there was a significant chronological order. The insult I issued was only meant as a riposte to his filthy little keyboard fingers. He has since gone on to repost the same insults (which are no more clever than his Poster ideas, which were pathetic).I do not disagree with you on Breton's rather imperious character. But that
doesn't mean Surrealism can accommodate any religious attitude that comes
along. The fact about "New Age" religion is that it is purely bourgeois and
rather more a consumer good than a pathway: the rules are all too easy, so that
one can believe without personal cost. One believes and goes home, if that
belief gets in the way of (say) your stock earnings. Really, these beliefs are
a sop to a hurt conscience that forgets to include penance. Thus, since there
is only "revelation" and no redemption, they are hollow egotisms.
"Also if I remember correctly
the term was originally coined by Appolinaire who gave it a meaning quite
different than Breton's."
This is true, but irrelevant: the word "avant
garde" was coined by militarists, but there are not many who confuse it
for a mliitary term these days. And while it is also true
(as I have already stated) that many surrealist works would not precisely
fit his
original definition (as he was quite aware of by the 2nd Manifesto)
there still is only so far you can stretch a concept before it becomes
worthless: Religious belief is just outside
the realm of the word as defined by anyone! Except Nik. But Nik's (as
he says) "a
damned fool".
As for the rest, you actually seem capable of discourse,
which Nik has evolved
beyond. I won't go into (here) the difference between poetic convention
and
day-to-day connotation except to say (as I have before) that one cannot
revolt
against a reality and use its terms as a weapon unless one has come
to understand
the position those terms hold in the world. to say that "everything
is nothing: and vice versa is an entirely untenable position for anyone
engaged in civil discourse, and
is more a defensive posture rather than a belief system: he thus avoids
having to
discuss anything. Also when he says "All statements are equally true"
and then
states that he can choose not to believe what others say he is entwined
in a
contradiction of rather massive proportions.
I meant it when I said "goodbye" to him, despite
his attempt to turn it into as game.
I have also spoken to Brandon about this: it is (as you say) a hopeless
loop, which
entertains only the loopy. Nik is convinced (quite incorrectly) that
he has a belief
system because it makes him happy; but self-titillation is one of the
worst (not the
best, as he thinks) measures of a philosophy's value.
Thank you for your response,
Dale
Andrea Chen
> This is true, but irrelevant: the word "avant garde" was coined by
> militarists, but there are not many who confuse it for a mliitary term
> these days. And while it is also true
> (as I have already stated) that many surrealist works would not
> precisely fit his
> original definition (as he was quite aware of by the 2nd Manifesto)
> there still is only so far you can stretch a concept before it becomes
> worthless:
This is "true." But there is a bit of debate about where the
stretching can occur. I don't really keep up with the group, but my
impression of Brandon is that his definition is (by my standards) overly
rigid and that a person may legitimately claim the term surrealist with
ideas very different than his.
One of my peeves about postmodernists, cyberpunks, surrealists, gonzo
journalists and other declared rebels on the net is very often they get
into little enclaves, their art is confined to individualistic pieces
and they tend to lock themselves into little cliques. My belief is that
they don't actively explore the potential of this medium.
There are many opportunities to create collaborative art, to throw
divergent sets of people together, to create hallucinations to merge
fiction with percieved realities (eg. stories about aliens)
I spent several years experimenting with this medium and had some
success. Though of limited talents myself, several brilliant people
clustered around, a somewhat disruptive art (sometimes getting out of
control) did emerge, it did challenge and from a surrealistic set of
standards did help reveal the behaviors of the unconscious, did involve
collaborative creations, did disjoint realities and otherwise at least
crudely meet goals associated with various schools of modern art.
I find that most people are afraid to experiment. Often the people who
pride themselves on being rebels are those who create the most insular
groups and mantain the status quo. I personally have always taken some
joy in disrupting such things and throwing in new themes and people.
I will jump a bit here and note that in your letter you find the
concept of buttons rephrensible. But the reality is that you can't
change them. They are there and are often most irresponsibly employed
by those who are unaware of what they are doing. Unfortunatly the most
powerful ones are often nasty.
One thing the neu neutopian movement used to do was go into a group and
say "these are your buttons, we will press them and you will respond in
this way." We used to tease such people by claiming that we had
programmed them (challenging their sense of autonomy) and to a degree we
had. We tried to explain and demonstrate things which were already
happening, to make the unconscious conscious. This was only one of our
themes, but I would submit that it is surrealist.
And all of us are vulnerable to certain buttons. They may be
rephrensible, but you can't escape them. There are also all sorts of
interesting patterns (eg. Dombrowski's the messenger is the message)
I would argue that this is in some ways a next stage of surrealism (or
at least somewhat consistent with it) It involves exploration of the
ways people think and how messages are communicated. The powers that be
in this society are acutely aware of these issues, artists are not and
I do believe that so long as this is the case art will be of limited
power to act on the minds (the ecology of ideas) around us.
I am describing this because I suspect Nik might have sensed something
he felt was pompous (and we can all be pompous) and is trying to
undermine this. Rather than close your mind forever to what he has to
say, I suggest you try and detach. I do sense some interesting ideas
there and think that both of you have forced yourself to extremes.
> Religious belief is just outside
> the realm of the word as defined by anyone!
I'm not sure. Certainly Freud argued that mythic structures were part
of the unconscious. I can see certain lines of thought developing in
this direction. Attempts at the creation of random art also have
similarities to certain magical practices.
And it could also be claimed that Breton's surrealism was a quasi
religion.
This is a complicated subject (as is most of it), but one thing to
remember is that "surrealism" is an enticing word. Many want to claim
it. Common usages often smother the technical (and this can be
unfortunate), but in defence of such trends they could potentially make
a thing primarily of academic interest vital and living again. Do let
yourself be shaken and at least consider the unacceptable.
And if Nik remains wrong on some very vital issues, so are we all.
Dale Houstman
Andrea Chen wrote:
"One of my peeves about postmodernists, cyberpunks,
surrealists, gonzo
journalists and other declared rebels on the net is very often they
get into little enclaves"
Sounds cozy. Are these enclaves anything like
the Hobbits' burrows, or
Bugs Bunny's furnished hole in the ground? If so, I'm there!
I can't speak for Brandon, but I don't find excluding
religion from Surrealism
to be particulalry limiting since religion is essentially nothing.
All the ecstatic aspects
of it are more than appreciated within even the most "conventional"
Surrealist
circles, and all that leaves are its internal rigidities and moralistic
bugaboos. This
leaves plenty of room for research and action. So I can't say that
I've been arguing
for a scaling down of the subject, merely a giving of its due.
Well... I know I can't change the reprehensible concept
of "buttons" as a philosophical
ideal, but I feel quite a liberty to express my revulsion at such a
piece of shit disguised
as thought, and I suppose I will continue to do so at intervals.
This "button presser" thing is no more than another version
of "tough love" or
the Dianetic E-meter scam: it isn't even new, but just a bit tired
and "haven't we
all been there before". "I'll tease you into a new awareness of yourself"
isn't even
viable. Daddy can use it to "expand" Mommy's mind, and then Mommy can
use it on Daddy Junior. I think it's called abuse. A nice history there.
As I said
it is quite one thing to confront entrenched authority and bourgeois
social planners,
and quite another to push a hollow belief system on those as disenfranchised
as
yourself. Or are you actually suggesting that it is the same thing
to face down
an army as it is to drive a poor family from their house with humiliations,
just to
prove a psychological point that has already been demonstrated time
and time
again? If you must use these "buttons" try and direct your new-found
powers in
some efficacious direction. And it would be nice also, if you had a
belief system
behind the facade of psycho-tools, or your victory will be short-lived
and
fragile. It isn't a matter of who you can defeat or how entirely you
can bring
them to your camp, it's whether that camp is an prison camp or a social
evolvement.
Nik's victories (if they are truly indicative of this philosophy) are
profoundly
empty. It is not impressive.
I have listened to everything that Nik has said, and I
have responded. When
he says something of any import or grace at all I will be the first
to notice it. But
I think when he undoes all his buttons, all we'll see is an empty shirt.
I think you
are giving him entirely too much credit for cleverness.
Dale "Everything and Nothing" Houstman
Andrea Chen
You may have been wondering why I was posting this thread to aps I was
too. But now it seems to me that it offers some grist for your Usenet
controversy analysis.
Dale Houstman wrote:
>
>
> This "button presser" thing is no more than another version of
> "tough love" or
> the Dianetic E-meter scam: it isn't even new, but just a bit tired and
> "haven't we
> all been there before". "I'll tease you into a new awareness of
> yourself" isn't even
> viable. Daddy can use it to "expand" Mommy's mind, and then Mommy can
> use it on Daddy Junior. I think it's called abuse.
It seems I pushed some buttons. As for you "having been there before"
why are you trying to push my buttons? Your post is insulting, you go
on to make moral judgements based on a few points I've made. I mean
gosh you even compare with Scientology which is a BIG BUTTON on the
net. The "normal" response to this would be anger at which point we
could enter another endless loop.
>A nice history
> there. As I said
> it is quite one thing to confront entrenched authority and bourgeois
> social planners,
> and quite another to push a hollow belief system on those as
> disenfranchised as
> yourself.
Fascinating. You provide perfect examples. Having been involved (in
my younger days) in a few movements, one thing I noticed is there
tendency to self destruct. Bitter battles would develop over all sorts
of issues (my favorite was i communal house arguing that they didn't
have to try and conserve leaflets because they didn't use toilet
paper.)
Now in a few minutes you have gone from friendly comments to angry
assumptions and demonstrated how we carry and perpetuate the "buttons"
which destroy collaboration among the "disenfranchised."
You know if I am aware of these buttons, I might be able to say I'm
sorry. I didn't mean to enrage you and was trying in a calm way to make
some observations. Obviously they hit on points I didn't expect. So I
will say with some sincerity I am sorry. I didn't mean to imply any
attack on you.
> Or are you actually suggesting that it is the same thing to
> face down
> an army as it is to drive a poor family from their house with
> humiliations,
I never mentioned armies. I do think that my driving poor families
from their homes with taunts is an event too many people dwell on.
After all I could have nerve gassed them.
Now I suspect the above statement will make you angry. But your
statement made me amused in an awed sort of way. Somehow statements of
mine (buttons) translated through a set of logics which pushed othr
buttons and now I'm abusing "widows and orphans" (another famous
button.)
>just to
> prove a psychological point that has already been demonstrated time
> and time
> again?
Because no matter how often it's demonstrated most people don't seem to
get it. Unless you're trolling me (which would be a fine piece of art)
you are falling for it even though you say you know all about it.
>If you must use these "buttons" try and direct your new-found
> powers in
> some efficacious direction.
Like your post? First of all I was discussing the transmission of
images, and briefly mentioning the hallucinary nature of this medium and
the opportunities it offers for "art" along with a meta art of examining
these transmissions, transformations and mutations.
Suddenly I'm faced with an "efficacious" post which indicates that I'm
some dastardly fiend.
> And it would be nice also, if you had a
> belief system
> behind the facade of psycho-tools, or your victory will be short-lived
> and
> fragile.
I see.
>It isn't a matter of who you can defeat
Yet you reply with the buttons of anger. You attempt to make this a
situation where we both try to win. But of course the other person
never admits losing on Usenet, thus the endless loop.
However in the terms *you* have defined (winning and losing) you would
probably in the hearts and minds of many people have suffered a loss.
Why? Because I don't respond by calling you names, claiming you have no
principles and so on.
All I can think is that I unintentionally hit upon a whole set of pent
up issues, that perhaps I awakened your recent conflict. These
"buttons" and their associated logics have indeed "programmed" you. In
other posts I see a fairly intelligent individual loudly proclaiming his
desire for civilized discussion and then suddenly...
You seem to have some interest in "causes" (is this a button?) Such
causes often involve adversarial relationships. It seems likely to me
that a skilled manipulator could reduce you to a raving maniac thus
discrediting you even if what you said was "right."
This is going to anger you, but I don't think you have any grasp of my
pseudo psychology. You think it's obvious and yet you fall victim to
what I was describing.
I mean Bill, what would happen to this guy is we turned Spunky Lucy on
him?
> or how entirely you
> can bring
> them to your camp, it's whether that camp is an prison camp or a
> social evolvement.
Actually I would prefer neither. But I wasn't really trying to bring
people into my "camp." I was arguing for demonstrating and
understanding the mechanisms by which we communicate.
> Nik's victories (if they are truly indicative of this philosophy) are
> profoundly
> empty.
I never mentioned Nik's "victories." I stated that he had some
interesting points and that if one ignored the relativist extremism
(implied in some of what he said) that these were worthy of discussion.
I basically said my quick reading of him implied some intelligence.
I said the same thing of you, but somehow this becomes an eithetr/or
situation. (see my first post to this thread)
As far as Nick's behaviors (accepting your version) I suggested that
there could be a number of causes and triggers (is that better than
buttons?)
>It is not impressive.
>
> I have listened to everything that Nik has said, and I have
> responded. When
> he says something of any import or grace at all I will be the first to
> notice it. But
> I think when he undoes all his buttons, all we'll see is an empty
> shirt. I think you
> are giving him entirely too much credit for cleverness.
>
I think Nik is a very big BUTTON and my kind statements about him a big
factor in your response. This is fairly predictable. There was clearly
a lot of irritation developed. Of course I could be wrong.
Big Hug
(((((((((Dale)))))))))
I mean this.
>
>
perceptor
Brandon J. Freels
alt.pouting.sandwich? Why is this happening?
---BJF
Andrea Chen wrote in message <365DB3...@earthlink.net>...
Brandon J. Freels
>I don't really keep up with the group, but my impression of Brandon is that
his >definition is (by my standards) overly rigid and that a person may
legitimately claim >the term surrealist with ideas very different than his.
Brandon responds:
Here is my "working" definition of "Surrealism" ---
Surrealism is the demand to further reality, to push reality past the reign
of logic, in hopes of reaching the purist of thoughts. Surrealism is freedom
from society's artificial obligations, emancipating the mind and its ability
to unify contradictions. Surrealism is giving in to the imagination, and
accepting perception as existing in both closed and opened eyes. Surrealism
is accepting your fantasies and desires, your impulsive and irrational
actions, and all the things that would have you labeled mad. Surrealism is
the movement of the mind towards a clearer understanding of life. Surrealism
is "the pruning of life" (Boiffard, Eluard, Vitrac).
Dale Houstman
Andrea Chen,
You really don't like being not totally agreed with, do you?
Buttons? Let's see... someone has discovered that people "like"
getting positive attention, and "dislike" getting negative attention.
And I thought all the geniuses were dead...
Dale Houstman
Nikolaus Maack
Dale Houstman (dale.h...@gte.net) writes:
> Buttons? Let's see... someone has discovered that people "like"
> getting positive attention, and "dislike" getting negative attention.
Dale is a good person. While I dislike his arrogance and pretentiousness,
I must admit that he is a wise and clever man. All of his postings thrill
me. When I come into alt.surrealism and see that there is new material
from him, I get all wet with excitement. My nipples grow hard, pressing
out against the lacy fabric of my 38 double D bra. Sometimes I hike up my
skirt and touch myself, right on my clit. This is especially embarrassing
if I happen to be in a public computer lab.
But who cares about the gawking glares of computer science majors! When
the words of Dale are near, I must finger my pussy to orgasm, spreading my
legs as wide as I can, dreaming of his surrealist cock. Every piece of
wit that emerges from him makes me insane with desire.
> And I thought all the geniuses were dead...
Oh Jesus, oh God, yes, Dale. More! MORE! I imagine you lying in bed
next to me, late at night, me in my dark red merry widow with velcro
fasteners for easy removal, you in nothing but a cock-ring. Before you
take me in your arms, before you plunge your enormous prick into my
drooling cunt, you read me your philosophy essays from years gone by. By
the time you conclude that surrealism allows for playing with the mystical
so long as we don't believe in it, I can't stand it any more.
I throw you back on the bed, tear open my bodice, and thrust my tits into
your face. "Bite my nipples!" I shriek, thrusting them at your face.
"Torture my tits the way you torture my mind!"
But alas, I don't even know what city Dale is in. My fantasy goes
unfulfilled. I cry myself to sleep every night.
Nik
--
"I've had it with you: you are dense as lead donkey."
--Dale Houstman
Andrea Chen
>
> Andrea Chen,
>
> You really don't like being not totally agreed with, do you?
>
This is an example the amazing self editing that people are capable
of. There is every reason to believe that Dale is "sincere."
My first posts mentioned buttons (a well known word) speculating how
the conversation between Dale and Nik had degenerated to the level of
their pressing and was no longer on an intellectual level. This is a
well known Usenet event.
I next briefly mentioned the neu neutopian experiment which was
essentially a loose connection of writers collaborating to build
entertainment (on topic to the group) and how as a part of the program
we might suggest to the readers in alt.alien.visitors "we are now going
to convince you that we are government disinfo agents" or to readers of
ark "we will now identify with hive mind (still a popular symbol there)"
It was simply an attempt to play with symbols and ideas and to provide
some analysis of what happens in group communication for which Usenet is
perfect because it does provide a record.
At this point Dale goes into a frenzy. We get no discussion of
collaborative art in this medium, but accusations of "abuse" (and
worse). This is "mild disagreement." It consists of buzzwords
(buttons) comparing me to scientologists, the eviction of families, it
goes on to proclaim I have no moral values and then pretty much closes
up in a discussion of "winning." This last adversarial referance did
puzzle me. It is perhaps indicative of Dale's state of mind. It is
indicative of the mind of many on Usenet. The goal wasn't "victory" but
complex collaborative stories and commentaries welding the serious and
the absurd.
There was at times commentary on such events (similar to this) pointing
out particular responses which seemed to be absurd, noting mental
patterns in people (such as their tendency to believe that you believe
the most absurd stuff (fairly obvious humor) if you accuse them of being
a secret agent of some sort because 1) It's a common behavior of kooks
2) It flatters their ego).
This stuff is "obvious" to Dale. Fine. Yet he finds the concepts of
buttons "rephrensible." Perhaps, but it is. People use symbols to
manipulate each other all the time. A response such as Dale made
earlier filled with all sorts of accusations, claims of moral
superioriority etc. is filled with exactly these sorts of buttons.
Specifically point out this behavior to Dale and what is the response:
"You really don't like being totally agreed with?" Dale is now trying
to move himself to the high moral ground, to suggest that he is open to
ideas, that his previous response was mild, reasoned etc. and that my
response to his was not.
Now this may be amazing (at least it still shocks me even though I've
seen it many times), but Dale probably doesn't find anything offensive
in his earlier post just as he never mentioned that he had insulted Nik,
but portrayed himself as an innocent victim (both clearly as in a
spoonful of brains and implicitely such as his claims that Nik's ideas
have absolutely no value.) Dale is very, very sensitive to atacks (real
and implied) on himself and is completely unaware that he attacks
others. He is to return to an earlier theme simply speaking the
"truth."
Previous neu neutopian experiment (*one* of which goals was to call
attention to what was actually happening the here and now so that people
could avoid pitfalls) suggests that Dale will not change. In
conversations (except with erstwhile allies (eg. Dombrowski's the medium
is the message) some statement will offend him, he will focus on this
and the conversation will head for the endless loop of attacks (and in
dale's case a bit of whining)
> Buttons? Let's see... someone has discovered that people "like"
> getting positive attention, and "dislike" getting negative attention.
>
Actually it becomes a bit more complex than that. There has been some
empirical analysis of specific symbols and there various effects such as
Bill Cleere's observation that the knights templars introduced at a
certain point can make the audience go wild.
Artists have been very aware of this throughout history and nowadays
the powers that be spend fortunes (in the advertising industry, politics
etc.) studying what effect certain symbols and images have, how they
spread etc. Meanwhile we are spreading symbols, images and effecting
our neigbors (often in destructive ways) everywhere and especially on
Usenet. It is (to me) a fascinating subject and Usenet provides a
powerful tool for watching such effects.
The word button (obviously a button to you) provides a term, it
standarze discussion and commentary on social behaviors is potentially
useful (many people are not prepared for the effect usenet will have on
them, it can pull them with powerful emotional intensity, they literally
lose control and are not prepared for the many levels of communication,
even the structure of a well made troll is unknown) and is consistent
with certain schools of *Modern* art in which the play itself is
analyzed (the structures, physical and symbolic revealed) and to some
degree (to the extent that they participate and play) the audience.
> And I thought all the geniuses were dead...
>
Thankyou. Though except in parody I never claimed to be a genuis
(though I suspect you may have such suspicions about yourself). I have
simply argued that this medium offers an opportunity to explore many
theories and techniques of art, in many ways a unique opportunity.
These methods are indeed often explored, but typically intuitively. The
neu neutopian movement (neutopia is in itself a button, an appeal to
absurdity based on our honoring of "kooks" who we claim provide a form
of identity the net and who we hope to raise up like Emperor Norton was
in San Francisco) did play with these forms. The button and other tools
(neu neural threads for crossposting which when carefully chosen CAN
bring disparate groups together to work on problems and cross
fertilize), the image of the net as a single giant computer (not
original) with every human and AI a neuron... each of these and many
more (including buttons) were (and are) a part of a play, things for
people to play (sorry can't resist the pun) with.
I (and others) spent a lot of time experimenting with this medium.
There were some successes, many failures, and a lot of learning. Now
clearly this has no interest to you Dale, but it was an attempt at art,
an art which includes some of the themes of surrealism.
No it doesn't take genuis to take a net kook who many people enjoy
flaming, to elevate her name and praise her, then in her name propagate
a philosophy (very, verry) different than your own (incorporating many
of her words, such as massagasm, lovalution, arkologies), then watch the
consternation of people to whom that kook is a button, watch the very
different levels of perception including people who despite many (many)
clear statements otherwise are unable to separate you from the original
doctrine. They have become so fixed in their impression of a word that
they can't notice when the meaning is purposefully and consistently
altered.
No it doesn't take genuis to declare that on Usenet (in reverse of
normal society) men get to become honorary women (and earn the title of
Doctress (as in Doctress Neutopia)) But it's fascinating to see which
men good humoredly take on the title and which ones react in rage.
Another source of rage was people (who typically styled themselves
artists and rebels) who responded to our efforts in the same dismissive
manner that you do. The replies themselves are predictable (an
indication that certain buttons set off certain response) "boring" "of
no interest" "obvious" etc. Amazingly many of these people would spend
a great deal of time repeating these praises as though they were some
sort of mantra even though there certainly is plenty of boring,
unoriginal and obvious posts on Usenet ours clearly pressed some
buttons. In fact some people became obsessed.
It could happen to you Dale, believe me it could. Your responses are
so predictable and fit a common pattern. You are unable to percieve
things (such as the fact that your earlier response to me was filled
with insults) People can press your buttons Dale and you will have no
way of letting yourself see whats happening (the Freudian concept of
repression.)
Incidently Dale a pop psychology observation (not original, but
somewhat confirmed by my observation of quite a few people) is that
people who react most fiercely to the concept of "button" are those who
play them (unconsciously) most consistently. I have watched you in
several threads and in each case you resort to denial of the
intellectual value and the morality of the other person. Now this isn't
really enough evidence to draw many conclusions on, but Dale you do fit
a common pattern of behaviors.
I mean lets face facts Dale. People who have sincerely tried to end
(or control or at least understand) manipulative behaviors have noted
them everywhere. They are not particualrly disturbed by the idea of
buttons. They see them everywhere because they notice how certain
statements start to trigger certain reactions. In a very short post
which I responded to at length you made sveral statements which
ordinarly will trigger irritation (at a minimum) in their recpients (eg.
I can't take the slightest criticism, you also trivialized a word (not
very important to me, but useful as a standard name) by saying that it
comes down to "liking and not liking praise and criticism." While my
description was certainly sketchy (and this is my last attempt for a
while to deepen it), there was enough information for you to infer that
the use of the word "buttons" involved specific symbols with highly
likely effects. The goal is to analyze what symbols have what effetcts
(there are variances on different individuals and environments), how to
sensitize some buttons, desensitize others, basically a lot of rather
primitive psychology which could be pragmatically applied to groups and
make people more aware of what was happening and hopefully more able to
deal with such stimulus in the future.
This *is* an obvious idea. Yet we as people don't do it. We are
manipulated. Our buttons get pushed (and buttons act on all sorts of
levels including the purely intellectual where the use of one word (or
concept) may frequently lead to discussions involving another with no
direct and obvious connection. Now the basic reality behind this *is*
simple, the actual behaviors are far more complex and often unexpected.
All the neu neutopian movement did was practice a form of entertainment
(a collective theatre of the absurd) which incorporated observation of
such things. Buttons were part of the vocabulary in a complex array of
events working at several levels. At times it did work, at times it
failed. But one of the interesting things it did discover was reactions
such as your own and yes these reactions were incorporated into the
work.
Bill Cleere
>
> I don't understand this entire post. Who is Bill? Why is he mad? Who are
> alt.pouting.sandwich? Why is this happening?
> ---BJF
I understand little, Brandon, but here it is:
(1) I'm Bill, merely an instructor in English Literature and
History at the newsgroup alt.pouting.sandwich (otherwise
nobody.)
(2) I'm totally not mad at anybody. A fellow named Dale,
I think, is mad at another named Nik, and getting a little
steamed at Andrea Chen into the bargain.
(3) alt.pouting.sandwich is Usenet's leading newsgroup for
the discussion of the evolution of the Net into a new
form of social organization. A good deal of bullshit is
also thrown around, always in the spirit of fun.
(4) All I know is, that charming imp Andrea cross-posted
this excellent thread into a.p.s., and spray-painted my
name on it, and I'm going to try to respond to the
previous post so as to have fewer ">"s.
-- Bill Cleere
Brandon J. Freels
>(2) I'm totally not mad at anybody. A fellow named Dale,
>I think, is mad at another named Nik, and getting a little
>steamed at Andrea Chen into the bargain.
Brandon responds:
One of my main objection to Andrea Chen's further post is her assumption
that Dale was angry. I read his original post to her, and saw both
corosponders mirroring the same intellectual attitude.
Dale Houstman
ugly refrigerator art used as a bladder sop
Robert Scott Martin
>Here is my "working" definition of "Surrealism" ---
Hi, Brandon. How does what you've written here differ from a Mondrian
boogie-woogie? He certainly pruned life into a place of clear
understanding where thoughts were pure, yet free.
>Surrealism is the demand to further reality, to push reality past the reign
>of logic, in hopes of reaching the purist of thoughts. Surrealism is freedom
>from society's artificial obligations, emancipating the mind and its ability
>to unify contradictions. Surrealism is giving in to the imagination, and
>accepting perception as existing in both closed and opened eyes. Surrealism
>is accepting your fantasies and desires, your impulsive and irrational
>actions, and all the things that would have you labeled mad. Surrealism is
>the movement of the mind towards a clearer understanding of life. Surrealism
>is "the pruning of life" (Boiffard, Eluard, Vitrac).
I guess my question is whether Eden is a garden or the Wood. Paris or
Tahiti?
Kisses,
Catherine Bush
--
CONFIDENTIAL TO ANDREA CHEN: Welcome back, darling. Your temple is
prepared, the Cocktail Party That Never Ends.
Brandon J. Freels
>boogie-woogie? He certainly pruned life into a place of clear
>understanding where thoughts were pure, yet free.
Brandon: Mondrian's boogie-woogie was an attempt to minimize elements. Its
philosophy has less to do with the inner self, and more to do with
manipulating visual perception. It is reducing, rather than enhancing, and
enhancement is what Surrealism is after. The "pruning" that takes place with
Surrealism is the pruning of logic from life --- logic being an artificial
obligation. Enhancement begins simultaneously with the removal of these
obligations.
Dale Houstman
tapir turd-based Romanoff apple pan dowdy
dale.h...@gte.net
It is hopeless. Nik is involved in some "nudedopian"
refillosophy deal: he's already admitted in about thirty
different ways that he doesn't really believe anything,
but is only trying to push our buttons (and, as suggested,
somehow for our own good!); how kind of the toad!
The crime is of course, that Nik hasn't got anything
on under his buttons. His original inventions for his
own Poster Project are solid proof of his immensely
dim prospects as a creative mind: I've seen more interesting
writing done by a doped deer on a car hood. It's one thing
to claim (I think speciously and totally post-dated) that
you are part of some evolutionary movement that aims to
breaks the human intellect wide open with buttons (and
probably zippers and velcro tabs), it is entirely another
to be such a banal guru. Most are of course; they keep pushing
those buttons because they are hoping nobody notices
they don't know how to work the elevator.
So in five easy steps Nik has gone from a harmless
religious dimbulb to a bright star of banality burning
on the horizon his ship is sinking into. In actuality,
he is just a slightly more verbal troll who (like any
well-trained chimp) mimics the minds of his betters
in hopes of gaining a warm place to eat and shit.
I, for one, am more than willing to let him have it.
Good monkey...
Dale Houstman
-----------== Posted via Deja News, The Discussion Network ==----------
http://www.dejanews.com/ Search, Read, Discuss, or Start Your Own
Brandon J. Freels
pathetic, or both?). It is a pity. I had such high hopes for the world
famous poet, Nik Maack, and now my hopes have been shattered.
---BJF
scot...@earthlink.net
<dale.h...@gte.net> wrote:
>
>You answer it yourself when you say you follow none but your own desire.
>since
>that is precisely what you define being a surrealist as (quite correctly
>if incompletely)
>then you must realize that since all religions ("sets of rules") exist
>to control and
>tamp that desire, a desire for religion is self-demolishing. It is a
>perversion of desire.
>
How is language different from religion?
Can language become a kind of religion?
Is it a culture's most powerful religion?
Dale Houstman
Brandon J. Freels wrote:
> <I had such high hopes for the world
> famous poet, Nik Maack, and now my hopes have been shattered.>
The Shattered Macks are playing at the Nicked Monkey tonight
on a double bill with the Everything is Nothings. You don't have to
bring money, because all paper is equally negotiable. The only
refreshments being served are Button Licker and NudeDopian
Flyshit. sorry no free Refillosophies!
DMH