Found on Deja. And Many Thanks to Brandon.
johnqadamsiii
>I'm posting these which I found by putting the word "project" -
as in
>SURREALIST PROJECT - through Deja.com's search engine.
>Some of the new writers here might be interested in reading
about
>surrealism.
>Thank you Brandon for these postings.
>
>---------
>From 06/30/1999
>
>If you are truly interested in the Surrealist Movement and its
current
>standing in the United States, I recommend you read "The
Forecast is
>Hot! Tracts and Other Collective Declarations of the Surrealist
>Movement in the United States, 1966-1979." A new collection is
to be
>released soon with tracts from 1979-1999.
>
>This book, of which many of those regular here at
alt.surrealism are
>aware, expresses the views of the Chicago Surrealist Group. At
this
>point, due to a lack of my own investigation on these views I
cannot
>say that I support all of them. Here are the views in which they
>pursue:
>
>Revolution against Capital and State
>Poetry as revolutionary praxis
>psychoanalysis as a subversive activity
>love and sexual insurrection
>the struggle against miserabilism
>exaltation of play
>necessity of laziness
>creation of free territories of the imagination
>defense of the Marvelous against religion
>abolition of whiteness
>undermining patriarchy
>importance of recalcitrant undercurrents in popular culture
>special glory of Black music
>dialectic of dialectic
>alchemy by any means necessary
>emancipation of wilderness
>humor, the pivot of surrealism's revolutionary project today
>
>---------
>Also from 06/30/1999
>
>Barrett's website has a list of links to the Surrealist Groups
>operating today. You can also contact the Chicago Surrealist
Group
>headed by the Rosemonts, which has been active since the
sixties [p.o.
>box 6424, Evanston, IL 60204]. They have published many
pamphlets over
>the years ranging from local issues to the Los Angeles riots of
1992.
>They also publish two magazines, Arsenal, which is available
through
>www.amazon.com and What are You Going to do About It, plus many
books
>by Surrealist authors. They seem to be the focal point for the
>Surrealist Movement in the United States.
>
>All a Surrealist needs to do to be a Surrealist is pursue
freedom.
>
>c.
>
I'm not sure about "focal point", but in reflecting upon these
two advocations "abolition of whiteness/special glory of black
music" i find [as you might] they, instead of avoid, emphasize
the notion of drawing unecessary boundaries, rather than attack
the idea of such limitations, past and present racism against
the African American notwithstanding here. Perhaps they would
prefer to reword or elaborate on the idea of abolishing say
whiteness, or blackness or jewness for that matter, and what
that entails exactly or how that augments free will and the
liberated person. Of course, every group provides its
perspective somewhat differently.
john
-----------------------------------------------------------
Got questions? Get answers over the phone at Keen.com.
Up to 100 minutes free!
http://www.keen.com
johnqadamsiii
have assumed, but a little ill-phrased i think. Not too sure
about the necessity of laziness either - i mean is it really a
requirement? On occasion i may fall shy, i'm afraid.
brandon...@my-deja.com
> I'm not sure about "focal point", but in reflecting upon these
> two advocations "abolition of whiteness/special glory of black
> music" i find [as you might] they, instead of avoid, emphasize
> the notion of drawing unecessary boundaries, rather than attack
> the idea of such limitations, past and present racism against
> the African American notwithstanding here. Perhaps they would
> prefer to reword or elaborate on the idea of abolishing say
> whiteness, or blackness or jewness for that matter, and what
> that entails exactly or how that augments free will and the
> liberated person. Of course, every group provides its
> perspective somewhat differently.
Go to:
http://www.surrealism-usa.org/pages/revolution.html
Also try:
http://www.surrealism-usa.org/pages/blues.html
Sent via Deja.com http://www.deja.com/
Before you buy.
Dale Houstman
"johnqadamsiii" <johnqadams...@yahoo.com.invalid> wrote in message
news:0410eb8f...@usw-ex0104-026.remarq.com...
>Not too sure about the necessity of laziness
I think laziness (and its educational/societal shadow: underachievement) is
more of an ethical stance in this world. At all times I position myself so
as to be ready to fall into sleep given the opportunity. This forms the
backdrop to all my activities, which seem to manifest themselves only as
extreme "calls of desire" and/or "the basic requirements" of a working
world. Otherwise, I'd rather fade, float, feather away.
dmh
elag
>Sure, i guess it could mean that - it's close to what i would
>have assumed, but a little ill-phrased i think. Not too sure
>about the necessity of laziness either - i mean is it really a
>requirement? On occasion i may fall shy, i'm afraid.
>
>john
I read this as invoking the necessity of laziness in terms of
supporting the (status quo) "protestant work ethic".
It's a license to dream, I think.
<o><o><o> <o><o><o> <o><o><o> <o><o><o> <o><o><o> <o><o><o>
elag
>two advocations "abolition of whiteness/special glory of black
>music" i find [as you might] they, instead of avoid, emphasize
>the notion of drawing unecessary boundaries, rather than attack
>the idea of such limitations, past and present racism against
>the African American notwithstanding here. Perhaps they would
>prefer to reword or elaborate on the idea of abolishing say
>whiteness, or blackness or jewness for that matter, and what
>that entails exactly or how that augments free will and the
>liberated person. Of course, every group provides its
>perspective somewhat differently.
>
I saw it as a call to ignore the dominant culture.
Back in the late 80's there was a Noise Band called "Missing
Foundation" which covered the East Village w/ a graffito of an
upturned martini glass & w/ vaguely syndicalist tracts and
slogans like:
The party's over
1988 = 1933
Ignore the white culture
I see the demand for the abolition of whiteness as a similar call
to revolutionary fervor and opposition to the established
culture.
elag
>In article <061cb540...@usw-ex0103-024.remarq.com>,
> elag <el...@concentric.net> wrote:
>> I saw it as a call to ignore the dominant culture.
>
>Well, no. Revolutions don't ignore.
>
>I'm sure that's not at all what they mean or what they do:
>
>> The party's over
>> 1988 = 1933
>> Ignore the white culture
>>
>> I see the demand for the abolition of whiteness as a similar
call
>> to revolutionary fervor and opposition to the established
>> culture.
>
>But again, ignoring doesn't work. Ask Rodney King.
>
>cythera
No, you missed my point. I feel that "ignore" in this context is
not akin to sticking one's fingers in one's ears and humming, but
more akin to ignoring the obvious and well marked path while
taking the (more interesting) untrodden unmarked one.
Abolish One Way Streets!
johnqadamsiii
>I think laziness (and its educational/societal shadow:
underachievement) is
>more of an ethical stance in this world. At all times I
position myself so
>as to be ready to fall into sleep given the opportunity. This
forms the
>backdrop to all my activities, which seem to manifest
themselves only as
>extreme "calls of desire" and/or "the basic requirements" of a
working
>world. Otherwise, I'd rather fade, float, feather away.
>
>dmh
>
It sounds appealing to me. Or also, if you prefer, there is ice-
skating come nightfall dressed as a kitchen owl, drifting at
your own leisure among the pillowy clouds, or skimming across
deserts with the tumble weeds at a more natural worldly pace.
john
johnqadamsiii
ailment to be 'ignored' or 'abolished'. First, whiteness is an
illusion, then white man this, and black man that, contradiction
soon follows, and the original idea of human greyness vanishes.
john
elag <elagNO...@concentric.net.invalid> wrote:
>cythera <cyt...@my-deja.com> wrote:
>>In article <061cb540...@usw-ex0103-024.remarq.com>,
>> elag <el...@concentric.net> wrote:
>
>>> I saw it as a call to ignore the dominant culture.
>>
>>Well, no. Revolutions don't ignore.
>>
>>I'm sure that's not at all what they mean or what they do:
>>
>
>>> The party's over
>>> 1988 = 1933
>>> Ignore the white culture
>>>
>>> I see the demand for the abolition of whiteness as a similar
>call
>>> to revolutionary fervor and opposition to the established
>>> culture.
>>
>>But again, ignoring doesn't work. Ask Rodney King.
>>
>>cythera
>
>
>No, you missed my point. I feel that "ignore" in this context
is
>not akin to sticking one's fingers in one's ears and humming,
but
>more akin to ignoring the obvious and well marked path while
>taking the (more interesting) untrodden unmarked one.
>
>
>Abolish One Way Streets!
>
><o><o><o> <o><o><o> <o><o><o> <o><o><o> <o><o><o> <o><o><o>
>
elag
>But i think the trouble lies in stereotyping "white-ness" as an
>ailment to be 'ignored' or 'abolished'. First, whiteness is an
>illusion, then white man this, and black man that, contradiction
>soon follows, and the original idea of human greyness vanishes.
Sure, I agree w/ what you're saying. The dichotomy of
white/black is, to a great extent, false since these are
superficial variations of one species. I wouldn't espouse my
goals using those terms myself. Nevertheless, society in Amerika
is still dominated by white males, so I can relate somewhat to
the strong sentiments of the Chicago Surrealist Group (& Missing
Foundation). Perhaps, in the 60's I would not have questioned
their terminology (burn baby burn).
tertiam quid.
elag
>elag <el...@concentric.net> wrote:
>>cythera <cyt...@my-deja.com> wrote:
>>>In article <061cb540...@usw-ex0103-024.remarq.com>,
>>> elag <el...@concentric.net> wrote:
>
>>>> I saw it as a call to ignore the dominant culture.
>
>>>Well, no. Revolutions don't ignore.
>
>>>I'm sure that's not at all what they mean or what they do:
>
>>>> The party's over
>>>> 1988 = 1933
>>>> Ignore the white culture
>
>>>> I see the demand for the abolition of whiteness as a similar
>>>> call to revolutionary fervor and opposition to the
>>>> established culture.
>
>>>But again, ignoring doesn't work. Ask Rodney King.
>
>>>cythera
>
>>No, you missed my point.
>
Care to elaborate?
>
>>Abolish One Way Streets!
>
>This isn't the joke you might like to see it as.
Care to elaborate?
johnqadamsiii
>johnqadamsiii <johnqadams...@yahoo.com.invalid> wrote:
>>But i think the trouble lies in stereotyping "white-ness" as an
>>ailment to be 'ignored' or 'abolished'. First, whiteness is an
>>illusion, then white man this, and black man that,
contradiction
>>soon follows, and the original idea of human greyness vanishes.
>
>
>Sure, I agree w/ what you're saying. The dichotomy of
>white/black is, to a great extent, false since these are
>superficial variations of one species. I wouldn't espouse my
>goals using those terms myself. Nevertheless, society in
Amerika
>is still dominated by white males, so I can relate somewhat to
>the strong sentiments of the Chicago Surrealist Group (& Missing
>Foundation). Perhaps, in the 60's I would not have questioned
>their terminology (burn baby burn).
>
>tertiam quid.
Okay, but let me say given that the white population here i
think is some 75 percent, it is difficult for it not to be a
dominant presence within American society, right? Should we
change that? Exterminate a portion of the population maybe? It
may not be a very popular idea, and i for one would have
personal reason to disagree! Or we could focus less on drawing
distinctions and more on the simple idea of equality. White as
the enemy - that's a step forward in thinking. We know the real
enemy is ignorance, blindness, ego. I think that's the key.
That's where the passion should go into.
john
elag
>elag <elagNO...@concentric.net.invalid> wrote:
>>johnqadamsiii <johnqadams...@yahoo.com.invalid> wrote:
>>>But i think the trouble lies in stereotyping "white-ness" as
an
>>>ailment to be 'ignored' or 'abolished'. First, whiteness is an
>>>illusion, then white man this, and black man that,
>contradiction
>>>soon follows, and the original idea of human greyness
vanishes.
>>
>>
>>Sure, I agree w/ what you're saying. The dichotomy of
>>white/black is, to a great extent, false since these are
>>superficial variations of one species. I wouldn't espouse my
>>goals using those terms myself. Nevertheless, society in
>Amerika
>>is still dominated by white males, so I can relate somewhat to
>>the strong sentiments of the Chicago Surrealist Group (&
Missing
>>Foundation). Perhaps, in the 60's I would not have questioned
>>their terminology (burn baby burn).
>>
>>tertiam quid.
>
>Okay, but let me say given that the white population here i
>think is some 75 percent, it is difficult for it not to be a
>dominant presence within American society, right?
True, but it's more about the oppression and marginalization of
minorities (& even majorities like women) than percentage
distributions (e.g. "racial profiling", "the glass ceiling", &
general prejudice). The distribution of opportunity in Amerika
is
still way out of proportion w/ population distribution.
Should we
>change that?
Many things relating to the oppression of minorities have changed
for the better but I don't think we've yet earned the right to
rest on our laurels.
Exterminate a portion of the population maybe?
That is an abhorrent idea to me.
>It may not be a very popular idea, and i for one would have
>personal reason to disagree! Or we could focus less on drawing
>distinctions and more on the simple idea of equality. White as
>the enemy - that's a step forward in thinking.
I basically agree. On my census form I wrote in "Homo Sapiens
Sapiens" in the "race" section.
We know the real
>enemy is ignorance, blindness, ego. I think that's the key.
>That's where the passion should go into.
I don't disagree, but I still reject the Dominant-Culture-
Whatever-Its-Label.
<o><o><o> <o><o><o> <o><o><o> <o><o><o> <o><o><o> <o><o><o>
-----------------------------------------------------------
elag
>
>> >elag <el...@concentric.net> wrote:
>> >>No, you missed my point.
>
>> >What an assumption. (snip)
>
>> Care to elaborate?
>
>Surely, I was questioning the basis or bases from which you
drew your
>conclusion that I had missed your point. I'm curious why you
drew that
>conclusion; will you please explain?
you said: Well, no. Revolutions don't.
which to me implies that you thought that I meant (by quoting
Missing Foundation) ignore in the sense of = ignorance (passive)
whereas I meant it in the sense of = rejection (active).
you said: But again, ignoring doesn't work. Ask Rodney King.
which to me implies the same as above. I feel that the latter
connotation of "ignore" (rejection) is very much in line w/
revolutionary thought. In any case I felt that both the
"abolish..." & "ignore..." quotes came from a similarly
hyperbolic
standpoint.
>
>> >>Abolish One Way Streets!
>> >
>> >This isn't the joke you might like to see it as.
>>
>> Care to elaborate?
>
>I'll let Robert Frost's poem elaborate for me:
The poem is very nice, but I still like my (very small) joke. I
must always use humor, the pivot of surrealism's revolutionary
project today.
Oh, and I still don't get what you are saying vis-a-vis its
supposed humor. Does anyone (other than the hyena-parrot) think
that it was funny?
johnqadamsiii
Breaker of the law, you are in contempt!
>We know the real
>>enemy is ignorance, blindness, ego. I think that's the key.
>>That's where the passion should go into.
>
>
>I don't disagree, but I still reject the Dominant-Culture-
>Whatever-Its-Label.
That's because it is always that which grapples for power over
its constituency, or is representative of mostly conventional
thinking. At any point it ceases i suppose i won't feel the need
to reject it too.
john
elag
>
> In article <02a25f5f...@usw-ex0104-028.remarq.com>,
> elag <el...@concentric.net> wrote:
> > cythera <cyt...@my-deja.com> wrote:
> > >
> > >> >elag <el...@concentric.net> wrote:
> >
> > >> >>No, you missed my point.
> > >
> > >> >What an assumption. (snip)
> > >
> > >> Care to elaborate?
> > >
> > >Surely, I was questioning the basis or bases from which you
> > >drew your conclusion that I had missed your point. I'm
curious why
> > >you drew that conclusion; will you please explain?
> >
> > you said: Well, no. Revolutions don't.
> >
> > which to me implies that you thought that I meant (by quoting
> > Missing Foundation) ignore in the sense of = ignorance
(passive)
> > whereas I meant it in the sense of = rejection (active).
>
> We are so close to being on the same page that I'm going to
just cut
> to the chase, and mention that some women, me being an
example, don't
> particularly like being told that we "miss the point", or
"don't
> understand." If you're talking about laparoscopy or mechanics
etc.
> you could be correct... but in most cases that sort of
statement is
> very likely incorrect and can be interpreted as condescending.
(I'm
> not saying that was how you used it).
No, I didn't intend to sound condescending. I might have used
"misinterpreted" or "misconstrued" which are "cooler" terms.
Anyway, if
you see my point, then I'm more than happy to drop the argument
there.
>
> > you said: But again, ignoring doesn't work. Ask Rodney King.
> >
> > which to me implies the same as above. I feel that the
latter
> > connotation of "ignore" (rejection)
>
> Well, actually this is a denotation: "reject" is a synonym of
> "ignore."
That's true, it's a secondary usage. I was really trying to
point
out
the positive connotation of the 2nd meaning & the negative
connotation
of the 1st.
>
> > is very much in line w/revolutionary thought. In any case I
felt
> > that both the "abolish..." & "ignore..." quotes came from a
similarly
> > hyperbolic standpoint.
>
> The Rosemont statement struck me as being too general, and
possibly
> misleading, and the other contains a secondary use of the word
"ignore"
Yes, but I saw something similar in them. Revolutionary
pronouncements
(manifestos, tracts, &tc.) often share a similarly dynamic (if
hyperbolic) character.
> (weak but not incorrect, as was reddadaqueen's use of the word
> "semantic"):
>
Okay.
> >"Just seems to me like a semantic discussion to deflect the
initial
> >topic in the post."
>
> Groan
The way this is threaded (for my feed) I can't see where the
above
comes
from (reddadaqueen I suppose), but I know that I didn't say it.
<o><o><o> <o><o><o> <o><o><o> <o><o><o> <o><o><o> <o><o><o>
-----------------------------------------------------------
elag
el...@concentric.net
cythera <cyt...@my-deja.com> wrote:
> In article <22273b48...@usw-ex0103-019.remarq.com>,
> elag <el...@concentric.net> wrote:
> > > Well, actually this is a denotation: "reject" is a synonym of
> > > "ignore."
> >
> > That's true, it's a secondary usage.
>
> No, sorry, it isn't a secondary usage. I'm not at all sure what you
> mean by that term, but I know it doesn't apply here.
It's the second most common usage of the word according to whatever
Dictionary I looked at.
>
> >I was really trying to point out the positive connotation of the 2nd
> >meaning & the negative connotation of the 1st.
>
> Well, again, not "connotation" but "denotation"...
> (con = with; de = of in Romance languages, n'est pas?). I myself can
> never seem to remember which of these means general to specific:
> deduction or induction.
Every word or usage thereof has a connotation (overtone). In this case I
feel I was accurate in assigning a negative connotation in one case and a
positive one in the other.
On a lighter note... please enjoy this cartoon:
http://www.unitedmedia.com/universal/bizarro/archive/cal-08.html
>
> > > > is very much in line w/revolutionary thought. In any case I
> > felt that both the "abolish..." & "ignore..." quotes came from a
> > > > similarly hyperbolic standpoint.
> > The way this is threaded (for my feed) I can't see where the
> > above comes from (reddadaqueen I suppose),
>
> Yes, the symbol : tells you that. It means "as follows." My point was
> that you (oh never mind). :)
000ps, my bad.
> What are you doing this weekend? And, have you ever been to Montauk
> Point and Peconic Bay?
A. eating French Food, and reading French poetry (mainly Baudelaire) &
about the French Revolution B. No, you?
elag
>> > In article <22273b48...@usw-ex0103-019.remarq.com>,
>> > elag <el...@concentric.net> wrote:
>>
>> > > > Well, actually this is a denotation: "reject" is a
synonym of
>> > > > "ignore."
>> > >
>> > > That's true, it's a secondary usage.
>> >
>> > No, sorry, it isn't a secondary usage. I'm not at all sure
what
>> > you mean by that term, but I know it doesn't apply here.
>>
>> It's the second most common usage of the word according to
whatever
>> Dictionary I looked at.
>
synonym
>of "ignore," and where this is found under the dictionary
subject
>header "ignore." And in both cases you are talking about
definitions,
>i.e. denotations.
Yes, of course (a dictionary entry similar to that from which I
took the 2 meanings for the word in question):
Ig*nore" (?), v. t. [imp. & p. p. Ignored (?); p. pr. & vb. n.
Ignoring.] [L. ignorare; pref. in- not + the root of gnarus
knowing, noscere to become acquainted with. See Know, and cf.
Narrate.]
1. To be ignorant of or not acquainted with. [Archaic]
2. (Law) To throw out or reject as false or ungrounded
3. Hence: To refuse to take notice of;to disregard willfully
>The connotations of "ignore" as "reject" are something
different, such
>as in, "I'm going to ignore the marriage proposal." But the
two words
>are really not clearly interchangable; I think here is another
of the
>poor definitions that run through (English-language)
dictionaries...
>"surrealism" being one, obviously...
>
>> > >I was really trying to point out the positive connotation
of the
>> > >2nd meaning & the negative connotation of the 1st.
>> >
>> > Well, again, not "connotation" but "denotation"...
>> > (con = with; de = of in Romance languages, n'est pas?). I
myself
>can
Nevertheless,it is acceptable usage of the word connotation.
Assigning a word (or specific usage thereof) a neg. or pos.
connotation is quite common.
I cribbed this from a guide on scientific writing:
Using a word with a negative connotation when a
neutral or positive connotation is wanted is weak writing. So is
the opposite, using a word with a positive connotation when a
negative or neutral connotation is desired
.. so the meaning of connotation is flexible enough to fit into
my usage of it.
>>
>> Every word or usage thereof has a connotation (overtone).
>
>I think a more apt metaphor might be "undertone" but this too
leads to
>a lack of precise meaning. A connotation for "home" could be
warmth
>or chilliness, etc. depending on who is doing the connoting, as
you've
>observed below. So these aren't precisely "overtones," but they
>_could_ be called "secondary meanings."
The precise meaning of connotation is widely understood. Do a
search for "positive or negative connotation".
>
>> In this case I feel I was accurate in assigning a negative
>> connotation in one case and a positive one in the other.
>
>Weren't you using actual dictionary definitions?
Yes, two dictionary definitions each w/ different associated
connotations (pos & neg).
have you ever been to
>> > Montauk Point and Peconic Bay?
>
>
>B. Yes, it's one of the most beautiful bodies of water I've
ever seen.
>Small. To me, even prettier than Hudson Bay or S.F. Bay. It's
very
>close to you but I think you know that. Another gorgeous place
in New
>York state is Lake Skaneateles, one of the Finger Lakes. The
water
>last time I saw it was a pale green blue and very very clean.
On the
>lake is a sort of jewel of a town.
It sound relaxing... I could use a bit o' that about now. I must
be content w/ travelling @ 24 frames per second.
Parry
> >[snip]
> >say that I support all of them. Here are the views in which they
> >pursue:
> >
> >Revolution against Capital and State
> >Poetry as revolutionary praxis
> >psychoanalysis as a subversive activity
> >love and sexual insurrection
> >the struggle against miserabilism
> >exaltation of play
> >necessity of laziness
> >creation of free territories of the imagination
> >defense of the Marvelous against religion
> >abolition of whiteness
> >undermining patriarchy
> >importance of recalcitrant undercurrents in popular culture
> >special glory of Black music
> >dialectic of dialectic
> >alchemy by any means necessary
> >emancipation of wilderness
> >
> >by Surrealist authors. They seem to be the focal point for the
> >Surrealist Movement in the United States.
> >
> >All a Surrealist needs to do to be a Surrealist is pursue
> freedom.
> >
> >c.
> >
>
> I'm not sure about "focal point", but in reflecting upon these
> two advocations "abolition of whiteness/special glory of black
> music" i find [as you might] they, instead of avoid, emphasize
> the notion of drawing unecessary boundaries, rather than attack
> the idea of such limitations, past and present racism against
> the African American notwithstanding here. Perhaps they would
> prefer to reword or elaborate on the idea of abolishing say
> whiteness, or blackness or jewness for that matter, and what
> that entails exactly or how that augments free will and the
> liberated person. Of course, every group provides its
> perspective somewhat differently.
Whiteness, I think, indicates the imperialist European and the set of
values he imposes on all he conquers -- values such as: the natural
superiority of white leaders, paternalism towards the exploited, and
Christianity (I’ve even heard it asserted that colour racism was a white
christian invention). A hundred years ago, the situation would have been
clearer, for racist and fascist rhetoric was still mainstream. But I
think little has changed about the character of the European march of
progress except the rhetoric.
-- Parry
-----= Posted via Newsfeeds.Com, Uncensored Usenet News =-----
http://www.newsfeeds.com - The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World!
-----== Over 80,000 Newsgroups - 16 Different Servers! =-----
johnqadamsiii
I assumed as much, that it was the intent with the terminology.
I guess i shouldn't be so picky at times.
john