Why Surrealism and Theism Do Not Mix
Nikolaus Maack
and explain that you must reject all authority figures. God, of course,
is the ultimate in authority figures, and so, clearly, you must reject
God. It is of vital importance that you think for yourself in these
matters -- therefore you should listen to me when I tell you to think this
way.
Surrealism is based on the concept of having an open mind. Let no theory
chain your mind. No theory, that is, save surrealism, which is the one
true path, unlike Christianity.
Oh, Christianity makes me so mad! So much talk, bluster, and pompous
posturing. So much chatter and so little action. They always quibble
over minor theology, say one thing, and then they do another. While they
pretend their beliefs improve their lives, they are in fact wracked with
guilt and a desire for copulation. They're no better off than before they
picked up their nonsensical beliefs. They all worship a distortion of a
man, Jesus Christ, who died nearly two thousand years ago.
We surrealists are a different lot. We worship Andre Breton.
I will now quote a sacred surrealist text -- the dictionary.
walrus -- n. A creature who always accompanies a carpenter. Eats oysters
on a regular basis. Prone to tears before meals.
The sacred doctrine of surrealism is that there are no sacred doctrines.
For this reason, everyone must be an atheist forever and ever, amen. Let
us bow our heads in unprayer, contemplating this Catch-22 while we read
from the holy dictionary.
carpenter -- n. A creature who always accompanies a walrus. Eats oysters
on a regular basis. Prone to tears before meals.
Mysticism goes against surrealism, except when surrealism acts as a form
of mysticism. Do whatever comes to you spontaneously, but if that
involves anything on the list in my pocket, you're doing it wrong, and
will have to start over. Keep in mind that money is evil, so never earn
any. Pay your rent with pleasant thoughts and good intentions, just so
long as I'm not your landlord. Remember, none of us is perfect, except
me.
If your art is earning you any cash, you have failed. If your art isn't
earning you any cash, you've also failed. Knowing the difference between
flavours of failure is what surrealism is all about. The goal of
surrealism is to die in obscurity, not having sinned. Not that we
surrealists believe in sin. Heaven forbid! Not that we believe in
heaven.
Please remember that there are no rules in surrealism. A posting of these
non-existant rules will be made once a week. Anyone caught not following
these non-existent rules will be drummed out of the movement. Last year,
all surrealists were supposed to be communists. Not so, this week. Next
week? Well, better hang on to your little red books, that's all I can
say.
A final word. If, after having consulted the dictionary, you still have
difficulty telling which is the walrus and which is the carpenter, here's
some useful advice: the one with the moustache is the carpenter, unless
he is the walrus.
I hope that this little missive of mine clears up matters.
Nik
--
UPDATED! Feb 2nd, 2000 -- go look!
The Nik Maack Art Gallery
http://members.xoom.com/gotnik/
Leo Sgouros
I realize the parody but was unable to comprehend the absolute dogged
persistence to maintain it up until now.
Salut
--
"The seed is spilled the bed defiled
for you, a virgin bride
hide yourself in someone else
don't find yourself in me"
U2
www.mkshadows.net
"Nikolaus Maack" <ac...@FreeNet.Carleton.CA> wrote in message
news:885g31$jgv$1...@freenet9.carleton.ca...
Dale Houstman
Nikolaus Maack <ac...@FreeNet.Carleton.CA> wrote in message
news:885g31$jgv$1...@freenet9.carleton.ca...
>
>
from the truth that it might as well live in Ottawa.
Although the first generation of surrealists were often "seduced" by
Breton's personality, even they contained many who were essentially
independent to a fault: Duchamp, Man Ray, Arp, Artaud, etc. So your little
joke (so tired and badly worn by now) doesn't ring true even there. As for
international surrealists NOW, Breton's words and deeds are entirely "up for
grabs" and are pooh-poohed or accepted as seen fit. Breton himself expected
and encouraged precisely such a divergence, spoke at length about NOT
fossilizing into a system of set beliefs and rituals. The nature of modern
surrealist activity (with which I am in almost daily contact with) reveals
just this: groups and individuals proudly running off in every direction,
some more "adherent" and some less, just as it was in Breton;s lifetime. So
at NO time was your little joke true, and, since all good comedy and satire
rises out of truth, it isn't funny either.
DMH
Nikolaus Maack
>So at NO time was your little joke true, and, since all good comedy and
>satire rises out of truth, it isn't funny either.
My brother, you are mistaken. When Breton was alive, he was a tyrant,
constantly changing the rules of surrealism, expelling anyone who didn't
keep up with his rules, who didn't follow his lead. Read any biography of
Breton, and you will see dozens and dozens of would be surrealists who
were kicked out by Breton, or who left in disgust due to Breton's arrogant
antics.
You claim that the influence of Breton is a weak one -- take him or leave
him -- and yet your actions speak so very differently. Breton is in your
blood. I can hear his cry in each cell travelling your veins. You want
to keep surrealism pure, even as you say that it promotes the concept of
an open mind.
Who is a real surrealist? What does a real surrealist believe? It is
rumoured that both Dali and Breton said at one point in their lives, "I am
surrealism." This is as good an answer as any.
Nik
PS.
I am surrealism.
Brandon J. Freels
Dale Houstman
"Brandon J. Freels" <fre...@teleport.com> wrote in message
news:52Fp4.788$yn3....@news1.teleport.com...
> It takes so little to get little Nikky off and running.
>
DMH
kin...@hfwork1.tn.tudelft.nl
And yet all you do is dog in him that last step of his,
just so you can elbow him in the kidneys. Surely great
surreal-masters like yourselves should be way out in front,
not kicking the stragglers. ;-)
#Paul
Parry
>
> I, as an authority figure representing surrealism, must now step forward
> and explain that you must reject all authority figures. God, of course,
> is the ultimate in authority figures, and so, clearly, you must reject
> God.
There's no doubt religionis the partner of authoritarianism, but there's
an even simpler reason to reject god-belief: it's idiocy.
[snip]
> They all worship a distortion of a
> man, Jesus Christ, who died nearly two thousand years ago.
Not to be picky, but I think it unlikely Christ was an historical
figure.
> We surrealists are a different lot. We worship Andre Breton.
If you write things like this, someone may take it seriously.
-- 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! =-----
Dale Houstman
"Parry" <pa...@zxOMITmail.com> wrote in message
news:38B2C3...@zxOMITmail.com...
> Nikolaus Maack wrote:
> >
> > I, as an authority figure representing surrealism, must now step forward
> > and explain that you must reject all authority figures. God, of course,
> > is the ultimate in authority figures, and so, clearly, you must reject
> > God.
>
> There's no doubt religionis the partner of authoritarianism, but there's
> an even simpler reason to reject god-belief: it's idiocy.
Of course you must know - if you don't already - that Nik is being
"funny." He is quite the theist himself, although very unlikely to engage
you in a one-on-one about it.
As for the "idiocy" of god-belief, I would agree (certainly there is a lot
of idiots involved in it, but many atheists are equally ignorant of the
imagination itself), except that too many religious people have been
"otherwise" intelligent and greatly creative, even revolutionary. The human
desire for transcendence is natural enough, and the stories mankind has
strung up around this need are quite marvelous. I think it is too complex an
issue to dismiss quite so abruptly, and - at any rate - this brand of
dismissal doesn't really open up the conversation much and convinces no one,
even those of us who are apt to agree in some small way. I believe
everything that is supposedly a benefit of god-belief is also a benefit of a
freed imagination, but this is almost impossible to convince the believers
of, and (really) finally who wants to?
DMH
>
> > We surrealists are a different lot. We worship Andre Breton.
>
> If you write things like this, someone may take it seriously.
>
No worry on that score, only "idiots" take Nik seriously...
DMH
Dale Houstman
"Leo Sgouros" <lsgo...@tampabay.rr.com> wrote in message
news:FBGs4.3302$vZ1....@typhoon.tampabay.rr.com...
>
> > Not to be picky, but I think it unlikely Christ was an historical
> > figure.
> >
> >
> >
>
> Even if totally a figment of the imaginations, it was *some imagination*
> that dreamed up this Jesus doing things totally outside of what was done
at
> the time.
But no better imagination than those who thought up countless deities before
him, and maybe even slightly duller in many respects.
> So maybe this is an argument for the "Jesus was a made-up figure" cause,
but
> who cares.The principles that he (allegedly) taught, and the principles
that
> the Buddha and others taught, stand up on their own, regardless of the
> authorship.
But of course it DOEs make a difference whether he existed or not; to
believers it is of prime importance of course, to the point that no
deniabiltiy is permitted. to non-believers it is important that he DOESN'T
exist. I think it can not be an issue only be to those who must literalize
even the most marvelous matters of the imagination. As for those
"principles" (either those of Christ or Buddha) you must realize they are
quite a mixed bag. They only stand up insofar as part of them can be ignored
at any particular moment. And - if indeed (as I think) Jesus (and Buddha and
all the rest) are creations of the human imagination - then the realization
of thsi, and thus the recapturing of that creation for man rather than for
God might very well be of the utmost importance.
DMH
>
Leo Sgouros
> Not to be picky, but I think it unlikely Christ was an historical
> figure.
>
>
>
It only matters to some.
Even if totally a figment of the imaginations, it was *some imagination*
that dreamed up this Jesus doing things totally outside of what was done at
the time.
Leo Sgouros
"Dale Houstman" <dm...@citilink.com> wrote in message
news:i_Hs4.851$%A3.1...@ptah.visi.com...
>
> "Leo Sgouros" <lsgo...@tampabay.rr.com> wrote in message
> news:FBGs4.3302$vZ1....@typhoon.tampabay.rr.com...
> >
> > > figure.
> > >
> > >
> > >
> >
> > It only matters to some.
> > Even if totally a figment of the imaginations, it was *some imagination*
> > that dreamed up this Jesus doing things totally outside of what was done
> at
> > the time.
>
before
> him, and maybe even slightly duller in many respects.
>
In particular surrendering instead of leading an insurrection.
> > So maybe this is an argument for the "Jesus was a made-up figure" cause,
> but
> > who cares.The principles that he (allegedly) taught, and the principles
> that
> > the Buddha and others taught, stand up on their own, regardless of the
> > authorship.
>
> But of course it DOEs make a difference whether he existed or not; to
> believers it is of prime importance of course, to the point that no
> deniabiltiy is permitted. to non-believers it is important that he DOESN'T
> exist.
Thats their problem!
Brandon J. Freels
> So maybe this is an argument for the "Jesus was a made-up figure" cause,
but
> who cares.The principles that he (allegedly) taught, and the principles
that
> the Buddha and others taught, stand up on their own, regardless of the
> authorship.
Yes, you are correct, the principles stand up on their own as oppressive
forces.
Parry
>
> "Parry" <pa...@zxOMITmail.com> wrote in message
> news:38B2C3...@zxOMITmail.com...
> > Nikolaus Maack wrote:
> > >
> > > I, as an authority figure representing surrealism, must now step forward
> > > and explain that you must reject all authority figures. God, of course,
> > > is the ultimate in authority figures, and so, clearly, you must reject
> > > God.
> >
> > There's no doubt religionis the partner of authoritarianism, but there's
> > an even simpler reason to reject god-belief: it's idiocy.
>
> Of course you must know - if you don't already - that Nik is being
> "funny."
I've read other posts by him, and thought he might be talking out of
both sides of his mouth -- no offense to Nik, it's just you never can
tell.
> He is quite the theist himself, although very unlikely to engage
> you in a one-on-one about it.
>
> As for the "idiocy" of god-belief, I would agree (certainly there is a lot
> of idiots involved in it, but many atheists are equally ignorant of the
> imagination itself), except that too many religious people have been
> "otherwise" intelligent and greatly creative, even revolutionary. The human
> desire for transcendence is natural enough, and the stories mankind has
> strung up around this need are quite marvelous. I think it is too complex an
> issue to dismiss quite so abruptly,
Not really so abruptly. God-belief is far less tenable in our time than
it was even just two hundred years ago, when Sade ripped it to bits.
That haunted minds have moulded gods from their shadows doesn't distract
from the essential absurdity of the idea, and even the best minds are
susceptible to idiocy. Of course such mythology speaks well of the
ancient imagination, but today the returns of god-belief are vanishingly
small. So leave the gods to history. In a surrealist forum, I don't feel
there should be any ambivalence on the matters of atheism and
materialism.
> and - at any rate - this brand of
> dismissal doesn't really open up the conversation much and convinces no one,
> even those of us who are apt to agree in some small way. I believe
> everything that is supposedly a benefit of god-belief is also a benefit of a
> freed imagination, but this is almost impossible to convince the believers
> of, and (really) finally who wants to?
I thought that branding god-belief "idiocy" in a surrealist group would
be like yelling "fire" in a burning theatre. I'm surprised that anyone
objects.
>
> DMH
> >
> > > We surrealists are a different lot. We worship Andre Breton.
> >
> > If you write things like this, someone may take it seriously.
> >
>
> No worry on that score, only "idiots" take Nik seriously...
It's not entirely my fault that it's sometimes difficult to distinguish
parodies from sincere posts.
>
> DMH
Dale Houstman
>
> "Dale Houstman" <dm...@citilink.com> wrote in message
> news:i_Hs4.851$%A3.1...@ptah.visi.com...
> >
> > "Leo Sgouros" <lsgo...@tampabay.rr.com> wrote in message
> > news:FBGs4.3302$vZ1....@typhoon.tampabay.rr.com...
> > >
> > > > Not to be picky, but I think it unlikely Christ was an historical
> > > > figure.
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > >
> > > It only matters to some.
> > > Even if totally a figment of the imaginations, it was *some
imagination*
> > > that dreamed up this Jesus doing things totally outside of what was
done
> > at
> > > the time.
> >
> > But no better imagination than those who thought up countless deities
> before
> > him, and maybe even slightly duller in many respects.
> >
>
> In particular surrendering instead of leading an insurrection.
Yes this is interesting isn't it? Of course sacrifice of the body for
"spiritual" gain is as old as scar tissue, but I do think - from my limited
knowledge - that this is an odd political twist on the idea. Dionysus and
his parallel Orpheus "gave it up" and Osiris got it real bad (all creating a
new nature for the trouble). I suppose it arises out of the entire notion of
mortification, of physical denial: which seems one of the central "sins" of
religion.
> >
> > But of course it DOEs make a difference whether he existed or not; to
> > believers it is of prime importance of course, to the point that no
> > deniabiltiy is permitted. to non-believers it is important that he
DOESN'T
> > exist.
>
> Thats their problem!
Possibly a problem, more likely a symptom. Whether the disorder is fatal or
not is undecided. Anway, even YOU must make decisions one way or another
sometimes, even before weighing all the evidence. It is strange that Nik
doesn't understand this point, considering his phony baloney railing on
about making choices based on emotion rather than intellect: to choose one
way or another requires a leap of sensation, of feeling. In truth I think
(as Thomas Huxley did) that agnosticism is the ultimate intellectual
posture, a refusal to commit to any stance until all the evidence was in.
But - personally - I have had experiences - some spoken of here - which
helped me make up my mind. I realize the nature of that "epiphany" renders
it no less likely to be incorrect, but I must say I haven't regretted it.
And the very idea of taking my position has colored my existence in ways I
feel quite comfortable with. And - relying on Occam's Razor - the
elimination of one tiny aspect of possibility (those gods without which the
universe continues to function entirely in the same way!) doesn't seem so
radical really.
I received an e-mail from one of the participants in this ongoing discusson
that called me a "nihilist" for my lack of belief in gods (and thus
externally motivated "purpose"), but IF I believe in the entire known
universe (plus the power of the human imagination to create divinity), how
is that really diminished by simply NOT believing in some putrid notions of
gods (minus the power of the human imagination to create divinity)?
The label struck me as silly and plainly desperate.
DMH
Dale Houstman
"Parry" <pa...@zxOMITmail.com> wrote in message
Yeah he did do a job on it didn't he?
> That haunted minds have moulded gods from their shadows doesn't distract
> from the essential absurdity of the idea, and even the best minds are
> susceptible to idiocy.
I just don't buy this: the vast majority of ideas could be considered
"idiocy" from the pragmatic point of view. Why do all those idiots write
poems, and dance like loons, and draw lines on flattened pieces of wood? God
is just another imaginative exercise. One that has taken on an enormously
independent existence of course.
>Of course such mythology speaks well of the ancient imagination, but today
>the returns of god-belief are vanishingly small.
I think so. And putting it in terms of an empty habit makes sense. But every
day you see or read about someone who doesn't think so, who "feels" God has
made a difference in their lives. There is no getting around such thought.
If someone really believes that surviving a car accident entitles them to go
about administering holistic healing and reading people's futures (a local
article of a week or so ago), then what can we do? These things remain
beyond the power of evidence.
>So leave the gods to history. In a surrealist forum, I don't feel
> there should be any ambivalence on the matters of atheism and
> materialism.
This may be so: but it ain't gonna happen.
>
>
>
> I thought that branding god-belief "idiocy" in a surrealist group would
> be like yelling "fire" in a burning theatre. I'm surprised that anyone
> objects.
I don't object so much: I appreciate hearing it after all the godling drivel
of late. But it isn't really a matter of protecting Gods, but of not
allowing human beings to be called "idiots" for simply holding one - to me -
errant - idea.
Nik is an idiot: every idea he has is a mistake.
> It's not entirely my fault that it's sometimes difficult to distinguish
> parodies from sincere posts.
No it isn't: Especially Nik's inept renditions...
As for the rest? There are varying reasons for either accepting or being
unwilling to reject god-thought. My mother believes (after a lifetime of not
believing) and I suppose it comes from some indefinable guilt. I can't brand
her an idiot, in fact she's a very bright person. My Dad believes too, but
he is essentially an idiot, although I feel sorry for him. Those who suspend
between belief/non-belief are often in the line of the man who invented the
word "agnostic" Thomas Huxley, who felt it was an appropriate stance for a
man of science. They don't want to shut themselves off from potential
experience. I can understand this, although I don't think there is anything
to lose and much to gain from taking the step.
It's just the blank statement of "idiocy" I don't want to buy. Maybe this is
just some lingering remnant of humanism in me? Other than that the
dissolution of theism is appealing to me. The dew-claw on a dog is
vesitigial also, but I don't think they're idiots for retaining it.
Evolution - physical or psychological - takes time.
DMH
Nikolaus Maack
> It's not entirely my fault that it's sometimes difficult to distinguish
> parodies from sincere posts.
Especially when most people who engage in parodies like to walk that thin
line -- "Am I kidding or not? You tell me."
Eat dead Irish babies. Eat them. Eat them and like it.
Nik
--
JC sez: "You don't qualify for my list of people too stupid to live."
Nikolaus Maack
>My mother believes (after a lifetime of not believing) and I suppose it
>comes from some indefinable guilt. I can't brand her an idiot, in fact
>she's a very bright person.
What religion is it that your mother believes? Why do you say that she's
"bright", despite her religion? I'm somewhat startled, given that you
regularly say that all religious people are morons.
> My Dad believes too, but
> he is essentially an idiot, although I feel sorry for him.
Why do you say your dad is an idiot?
> Maybe this is
> just some lingering remnant of humanism in me? Other than that the
> dissolution of theism is appealing to me. The dew-claw on a dog is
> vesitigial also, but I don't think they're idiots for retaining it.
> Evolution - physical or psychological - takes time.
"Someday society will come to its senses, and see that I am right"? Ew.
I certainly hope that society NEVER comes to its senses. Sensible people
are so very boring.
Nik
--
DH says: "Nik is an idiot: every idea he has is a mistake."
jsday
>Leo Sgouros wrote
>> who cares.The principles that he (allegedly) taught, and the principles
>> that the Buddha and others taught, stand up on their own, regardless of
>> the authorship.
>
> Yes, you are correct, the principles stand up on their own as oppressive
> forces.
If you meet the Buddha on the road... kill him.
_
Dale Houstman
> "Dale Houstman" (dm...@citilink.com) writes:
> >My mother believes (after a lifetime of not believing) and I suppose it
> >comes from some indefinable guilt. I can't brand her an idiot, in fact
> >she's a very bright person.
>
> "bright", despite her religion? I'm somewhat startled, given that you
> regularly say that all religious people are morons.
No I don't. You can't read Nik. I have NEVER said all religious people are
morons, much less "regularly."
To tell you the truth I am not certain what religion she is in now. She went
through a Catholic phase, but there wasn't enough community in it for her I
guess (this is the main attraction for her I think). It's some little
"weekly prayer circle" type of homey belief.
She's bright because she has a quick mind, can see through me (not in your
superficial psychological trivia way), is quite a reader, has a ferocious
memory for details, has been a very popular and organized personality about
town for years now. She is smart enough to realize that she can't toss her
gods down my throat, and so doesn't try to. any job she ever had she quickly
became the supervisor of, and made good changes in the programs, and usually
for the sake of the clients, not the managers. She is willing and able to go
to bat for her beliefs which - despite her religious veneer - are relatively
liberal if often captive of the usual dualistic "one or the other"
framework. I respect her.
>
> > My Dad believes too, but
> > he is essentially an idiot, although I feel sorry for him.
>
> Why do you say your dad is an idiot?
Because he is much like you Nik - a sentimentalist who thinks only of
himself, although he speaks often of "feelings" and cannot fiugure out one
real thing about
his life, his relationship with his own abusive father, or his lack of
empathy for other people. He is one of those mne for whom the Armed Services
seems best suited: weak-willed and willing to be told what to do. Yet -
still frankly full of themselves to the exclusion of others.
> "Someday society will come to its senses, and see that I am right"? Ew.
I never said this. Your paraphrase is crude as always.
DMH
Nikolaus Maack
>Because he is much like you Nik - a sentimentalist who thinks only of
>himself, although he speaks often of "feelings" and cannot fiugure out one
>real thing about his life, his relationship with his own abusive father,
>or his lack of empathy for other people. He is one of those mne for whom
>the Armed Services seems best suited: weak-willed and willing to be told
>what to do. Yet - still frankly full of themselves to the exclusion of
>others.
Sounds a bit like my own father -- money obsessed and lacking empathy, he
tends to walk over other people. One day, he was yelling at me, and I
yelled back at him, twice as loud, and he cowered. It startled the heck
out of me. He almost looked *happy* when I fought back and shouted him
down, like he was waiting for someone to do it all his life.
Very depressing, really, because I could almost hear him thinking: "My son
is fighting for what he believes in! He's yelling! We're fighting! My
little boy is all grown up!" Which is depressing, because my vision of
manhood doesn't have a lot of yelling irrationally in it.
I know that his own father was a tyrant. I kind of get the feeling my dad
is looking for a tyrant once more -- someone to once again be his boss --
to tell him what to do, what to think, what to feel.
Dad makes money, but doesn't seem to know what to do with it. When you
say your dad can't find "one real thing" about his life, it reminds me of
my father. He can't seem to figure out what matters for him. He doesn't
have a clue about what's important, what he should chase. He makes money,
and he holds on to it. His way of keeping score? His way of feeling
important? His way of filling a void? I don't know.
By the way, in your bio in the previous post, you mentioned you were born
in 1950. So you're turning the big FIVE OH this year, huh? Or has that
happened already? I mention this because I was born in 1970, and I'm
turning the big THREE OH at the end of March. Even numbered birthdays
seem evil.
I paraphrased:
>> "Someday society will come to its senses, and see that I am right"? Ew.
Dale said:
> I never said this. Your paraphrase is crude as always.
Right. What you said was, (once more paraphrased):
"There is no God. To believe in a God is a sort of evolutionary
throw-back. Human consciousness has evolved beyond God, but not everyone
has caught up yet. Like the dog who has an unnecessary dew-claw, we
retain some of our more primitive features. Of course, it takes time to
evolve to a new level. One day the dog will lose his dew-claw, and one
day we will lose our God."
(See? I was paying attention.)
My paraphrase suggests that 1) Maybe God isn't an evolutionary throwback.
maybe this is just your opnion. 2) If point 1 is true, what we have here
is you believing that some day the world will "evolve" to the same mature,
sensible position you yourself have reached.
3) iI other words:
"Someday society will come to its senses, and see that I am rigt."
Brandon J. Freels
> > What religion is it that your mother believes? Why do you say that
she's
> > "bright", despite her religion? I'm somewhat startled, given that you
> > regularly say that all religious people are morons.
Actually Nik, most are. I'll say that even in Dale won't. But let us not
forget the Portuguese Nun who, in a period where she fell in love with a
French soldier, forgot she was a Nun and let her desire write him some very
love fabulous letters.
Besides, I've always been a big fan of P.J. Harvey's:
"I've laid with the devil
cursed god above
forsaken heaven
to bring you my love"
A Surrealist can't help but admire the way love subverts religious faith.
Dale Houstman
> I paraphrased:
> >> "Someday society will come to its senses, and see that I am right"?
Ew.
>
> Dale said:
> > I never said this. Your paraphrase is crude as always.
>
> Right. What you said was, (once more paraphrased):
>
> "There is no God. To believe in a God is a sort of evolutionary
> throw-back. Human consciousness has evolved beyond God, but not everyone
> has caught up yet. Like the dog who has an unnecessary dew-claw, we
> retain some of our more primitive features. Of course, it takes time to
> evolve to a new level. One day the dog will lose his dew-claw, and one
> day we will lose our God."
Again you de-contextualize it: the main thrust of the post was precisely to
DEFEND the religious against the blanket claim of "idiocy." Of course it
would be intellectually honest of you to note this, so don't think I
expected you to get it right. As for the "dew-claw" and "evolution"
comments. Your second paraphrase (which is quite unnecesary at any rate: my
statement is clear. This is no different than your "mimicking" of my poetry
when a simple quote would have been more honest), is closer. I never said
that society will someday come to its senses and see that "I am right," I
was merely conjecturing (that's what people do Nikky), that - judging from
the historical evidence - there appears to be a growth away from godthought.
It isn't about me, and I honestly don't care. If you (again) were honest you
would note the countless times I have lauded religiously minded people for
their creative imaginations; that this includes almost ALL creative people
in history is obviously true. The shedding of religious thought however does
seem to be a general trend in many ways. But like all evolutionary processes
this doesn't of necessity mean progress. Atheism isn't an improvement in a
truly horrible human being, and - in fact - I find most of the talk of
"evangelistic" atheists to be quite insipid. Your response is typical of
you: you cannot imagine a person having a conjecture that isn't somehow
about themselves. I don't for instance in any way consider myself
enlightened because of any agnostic or atheist notions I may have arrived
at, and I don't in any way consider such theists as Blake, Dickens, Emerson,
Donne, etc. etc. etc. as throwbacks: they are all among the most forward
looking men of their age. All I was commenting on - after making it my main
point to defend theists against blanket insults - is the general sense of
drift at the moment. There are exceptions to this of course, and (like all
predictions) the outcome is foggy.
>
>My paraphrase suggests that 1) Maybe God isn't an evolutionary throwback.
> maybe this is just your opnion.
Not my opinion: but "God" isn't a throwback at all, he's a concept. Again it
isn't the concept so much as what you do with it. Blake makes cake with it,
and Father Coughlin makes shit.
2) If point 1 is true, what we have here
> is you believing that some day the world will "evolve" to the same mature,
> sensible position you yourself have reached.
Already spoken to.
>
> 3) iI other words:
>
> "Someday society will come to its senses, and see that I am rigt."
Already spoken to
You must stop disparaging the intellectual if only so you can access it once
in a blue moon...
DMH
Dale Houstman
> "Nikolaus Maack" wrote on a Dale Houstman post:
> > > What religion is it that your mother believes? Why do you say that
> she's
> > > "bright", despite her religion? I'm somewhat startled, given that you
> > > regularly say that all religious people are morons.
>
> Actually Nik, most are. I'll say that even in Dale won't.
Well - I can't go public with an insult to my mother!
Still - I appreciate your effort.
But it seems to me that this is still too blanket a statement to mean much:
the vast majority of the creative people in the past were theists of one
sort or another, and I cannot bring myself to call them morons. But - I
think the reason most theists apear to be morons is because most people are
less than bright in general. There's an atheist in my office who is as thick
as a horse blanket and twice as aggravating. On the other hand there is a
Buddhist who is as thick as a handball. It's just my opinion, but I think
intelligence is a separate item from belief or non-belief. Those mooks and
ninnies you see every day on TV (Pat Robertson, etal) would be stupid and
aggravating whether or not they believed in God.
DMH
Brandon J. Freels
> I've read other posts by him, and thought he might be talking out of
> both sides of his mouth -- no offense to Nik, it's just you never can
> tell.
Nik doesn't talk out of both sides of his mouth, but out of both sides of
his ass. He was one of those school kids that thought it was "rebellious" to
be counter-revolutionary. I've never understood these people.
> > He is quite the theist himself, although very unlikely to engage
> > you in a one-on-one about it.
Yes, Nik is quite the theist himself. In fact, since he is so persistent in
pushing personal information, I propose that he tell us "why" he is a
theist? Also, I propose that he tell us why he is so interested in
authority? And what is this strange fascination with "power"?
Brandon J. Freels
typo's... I made some editing corrections so you can figure out what the
hell I was trying to say.
Brandon J. Freels wrote
> Actually Nik, most are. I'll say that even i[f] Dale won't. But let us not
> forget the Portuguese Nun who, in a period where she fell in love with a
> French soldier, forgot she was a Nun and let her desire write him some
very
> fabulous [love] letters.
Nikolaus Maack
>(that's what people do Nikky)
Is there some cute version of "Dale" I can use, in order to symbolically
represent our new found friendship, now that you have opened up to me?
Daily? Dally? Dilly? Dildo? DooDoo? Dada?
Dada would amuse me because 1) the whole surrealism -- dada reference 2)
you're old enough to be my father 3) you often come across as a very loud
patriarchal authority.
Can I call you Dad for short?
(I giggle at myself. The psychological implications of calling you Dada
are just too precious. That, and it probably makes you groan in horror.
"I spawned that from my loins? Someone give me a grapefruit spoon so that
I may castrate myself all slow and painful like.")
> note the countless times I have lauded religiously minded people for
> their creative imaginations
All the while knocking their religious tendencies, but sure, okay. A
point for you. Mark it on the blackboard.
> you cannot imagine a person having a conjecture that isn't somehow
> about themselves.
Are you daring to suggest that objectivity is possible? In my opinion, we
cannot experience anything outside our realm of experience. All
conjecture is based on ourselves. We can speculate on the experiences of
others, but in the end, the best we can do is imagine ourselves in other
people's situations, which is always quite fallible.
> Not my opinion: but "God" isn't a throwback at all, he's a concept.
Then let me suggest you consider him a throwback concept, like a
particular bile determining your mood, or measuring the bumps on your head
to see if you're a saint or a criminal.
> You must stop disparaging the intellectual if only so you can access it
> once in a blue moon...
I am a were-intellectul?
Dale, for me, even when it's about intellect, it's still mostly about
style and mood and poetry. Would that you could say the same. Then we'd
be even better friends than we are now.
By the way, Andrea's post has inspired me -- I've gone out and bought us
matching dog collars. Could you provide me with a postal address I can
mail yours to?
Leo Sgouros
> Leo Sgouros wrote
> > So maybe this is an argument for the "Jesus was a made-up figure" cause,
> but
> that
> > the Buddha and others taught, stand up on their own, regardless of the
> > authorship.
>
> Yes, you are correct, the principles stand up on their own as oppressive
> forces.
>
>
>
I dont see what is oppressive about nurturing an understanding that we are
mortal and have natural tendencies that tend to drag our frame of referance.
I see the way you encapsulate surrealism as oppressive.
Leo Sgouros
"jsday" <js...@dragon.achilles.net> wrote in message
news:slrn8bak01...@dragon.achilles.net...
> Brandon J. Freels wrote:
> >Leo Sgouros wrote
> >> that the Buddha and others taught, stand up on their own, regardless of
> >> the authorship.
> >
> > Yes, you are correct, the principles stand up on their own as oppressive
> > forces.
>
>
>
> _
>
Yes.
This is his understanding of exactly the paradox Brandon attempts to
describe, by giving the answer in advance.That once liberated, the thoghts
cannot be recontained or even reformulated without killing the source.
Excellent!
+/-
Dale Houstman
>
> Is there some cute version of "Dale" I can use, in order to symbolically
> represent our new found friendship, now that you have opened up to me?
> Daily? Dally? Dilly? Dildo? DooDoo? Dada?
But - and this is where all your biographical mania breaks down on Usenet -
how do you know that any of what I have told you is the truth?
"Dale" is plenty cute already, don't you think?
>
> Dada would amuse me because 1) the whole surrealism -- dada reference 2)
> you're old enough to be my father 3) you often come across as a very loud
> patriarchal authority.
Pure crap... like from a baby's ass... Baby Nikky.
>Are you daring to suggest that objectivity is possible?
No - but there is the usual subtle eogtism of POV, and your gross brand of
personalism that misreads everything (including my "evolution" statement) in
terms that assume the writer is putting themselves at the epicenter of every
conjecture. Strangely enough intellectualism partly exists so that one CAN
at least attempt objectivity. The failure or success thereof is another
subject. Emotionalism uis ALWAYS selfish, even when it's disguised as
saintliness.
>In my opinion, we cannot experience anything outside our realm of
>experience.
That's a tautology and - as such - rather hollow.
>All conjecture is based on ourselves.
Yes: but there are degrees. To miscomprehend and misparaphrase a simple
sentence so that its conclusion leads to a arrogance that is not in the
original is not the same as not being able to experience the life of a
hermit crab.
>We can speculate on the experiences of others, but in the end, the best we
can >do is imagine ourselves in other people's situations, which is always
quite >fallible.
Doh...
What a load of intellectualizing poo. And from you, king of "emotionalism."
.
>
> Then let me suggest you consider him a throwback concept, like a
> particular bile determining your mood, or measuring the bumps on your head
> to see if you're a saint or a criminal.
You can suggest anything you want, especially since it has already been
considered. Little late on your fastballs aren't you?
>
> > You must stop disparaging the intellectual if only so you can access it
> > once in a blue moon...
>
> I am a were-intellectul?
You only wish...
>
> Dale, for me, even when it's about intellect, it's still mostly about
> style and mood and poetry. Would that you could say the same.
Not to be too overtly egotistical here Nik, but I'll put my poetry up
against your clunky little farts anyday.
>
> By the way, Andrea's post has inspired me -- I've gone out and bought us
> matching dog collars. Could you provide me with a postal address I can
> mail yours to?
No - just send it to your Mother, Andrea... I hear her barking up your
alley.
DMH
Fascinan
> I think
>intelligence is a separate item from belief or non-belief. Those mooks and
>ninnies you see every day on TV (Pat Robertson, etal) would be stupid and
>aggravating whether or not they believed in God.
No doubt about it. Aggravating is the appropriate word when I think of Pat
Robertson. He gives me the same gastrointestinal discomfort as Patrick Duffy
promoting an Ab Blaster, because, in a sense, Robertson is promoting his
interpretations of Christianity -- which is somehow not "spiritual" at all.
Both come across as campy, cavernous buffoons.
Brandon J. Freels
before...
Leo Sgouros <lsgo...@tampabay.rr.com> wrote in message
news:MrXs4.8$I53...@typhoon.tampabay.rr.com...
>
> "Brandon J. Freels" <fre...@teleport.com> wrote in message
> news:MkNs4.16504$yn3.1...@news1.teleport.com...
> > Leo Sgouros wrote
> > > So maybe this is an argument for the "Jesus was a made-up figure"
cause,
> > but
> > > who cares.The principles that he (allegedly) taught, and the
principles
> > that
> > > the Buddha and others taught, stand up on their own, regardless of the
> > > authorship.
> >
> > Yes, you are correct, the principles stand up on their own as oppressive
> > forces.
> >
> >
> >
>
Nikolaus Maack
>But - and this is where all your biographical mania breaks down on Usenet
>- how do you know that any of what I have told you is the truth?
I don't, which is why your (previous) reluctance to post any biographical
material is so amusing. You would think with deniability being at
maximum, you'd be much more willing to state "personal" stuff.
> "Dale" is plenty cute already, don't you think?
"Chip and Dale", "over hill and Dale", the Dalecs from Dr. Who... There
is material to work with, but I'm not sure it'senough.
> Pure crap...
Dale, can I make a suggestion for future posts from you? Quoting a line
and typing, "bullshit", or "pure shit" or "that's utter twaddle!" isn't
actually very useful, conversation wise. For one thing, it comes across
as rather childish, and you're (supposedly) almost 50, which makes it even
sillier. For another, if you do want to engage in a discourse with
someone, telling them their text is crap doesn't exactly promote a "free
exchange of ideas".
This concludes the Anne Landers portion of this posting. No, no -- not
Anne Landers. Who is that etiquette wench? I forget her name. Ah, well.
> Strangely enough intellectualism partly exists so that one CAN
> at least attempt objectivity. The failure or success thereof is another
> subject. Emotionalism uis ALWAYS selfish, even when it's disguised as
> saintliness.
As I argued in a previous post, I think intellectualism (as you call it)
has spread to the point where people are almost incapable of discussing
their feelings. As I said earlier, we are taught, in school, never to use
the word "I" in an essay. I will not deny that intellectualism can be
useful, but surely you can admit that it's not ALWAYS the best tool. There
has to be some point when we discuss our private lives, and our private
feelings.
>>In my opinion, we cannot experience anything outside our realm of
>>experience.
>
> That's a tautology and - as such - rather hollow.
It was also kind of a joke. It was a fun sentence for me to type, anyway.
> Yes: but there are degrees. To miscomprehend and misparaphrase a simple
> sentence so that its conclusion leads to a arrogance that is not in the
> original is not the same as not being able to experience the life of a
> hermit crab.
Whether or not there WAS arrogance in the original is a matter for
debate, isn't it? I think we can all admit that we have portions of
ourselves that are hidden from our own perception. You say you weren't
being arrogant. Perhaps you would even say -- I'd laugh if you did --
that you never demonstrate arrogance in this newsgroup. I think it's safe
to say that many would disagree with you. Perhaps you aren't in the best
position to know whether or not you're being arrogant?
This is all speculation. Far be it from me to go out on a limb with an
amusing and bizarre statement simply to entertain myself. (Hee hee!)
> What a load of intellectualizing poo. And from you, king of
>"emotionalism."
Let's call it "personalism", shall we?
> Little late on your fastballs aren't you?
I never played baseball as a child. Or as an adult, for that matter.
> Not to be too overtly egotistical here Nik, but I'll put my poetry up
> against your clunky little farts anyday.
Dueling poetry? Can this be done? Unfortunately we seem to work in very
different realms -- I like comedy, you have no sense of humour. This may
lead to some difficulty figuring out what kind of battle to have.
Nikolaus Maack
> Buddhism and Christianity both oppress desire. We've been through this
> before...
A serious question -- does "intellectualism" repress desire?
Brandon J. Freels
> I am talking about universal principles of wisdom.Not some restrictive
> architecture of control.
Um? And just what are you talking about with this "universal principles of
wisdom." Can you please name these principles? I would like to know such
concrete spiritual information.
Ed
the zero dimension. Between the three polywaves of the mind,
matter and nothingness is an inherent gap called the xylowave. A
xylowave occurs everytime an effect has no cause, or a cause has
no effect. Autoficiality is the conceptology dealing with the
relationships of the sides and angles of such probabilities to
their relevant functions. These functions, an accumulative
effect of entropy, stand as the tall sturdy pillars of rot and
decay before the house of logic, The Totimorphous.
http://www.idrive.com/haters/web/
* Sent from RemarQ http://www.remarq.com The Internet's Discussion Network *
The fastest and easiest way to search and participate in Usenet - Free!
Leo Sgouros
"Fascinan" <fasc...@aol.com> wrote in message
news:20000223163315...@ng-cs1.aol.com...
I somehow aquired a copy of his book about the new world order.
I have no idea where it came from, but I can tell you the guy is a full-out
kook.
Leo Sgouros
before.
Besides, your fallback option is, again, organized religion, when we both
know organized religion is often in itself the problem.
I am talking about universal principles of wisdom.Not some restrictive
architecture of control.
"Brandon J. Freels" <fre...@teleport.com> wrote in message
news:suZs4.17898$yn3.1...@news1.teleport.com...
> Buddhism and Christianity both oppress desire. We've been through this
> before...
>
Leo Sgouros
> Leo Sgouros wrote
> > I am talking about universal principles of wisdom.Not some restrictive
> > architecture of control.
>
> wisdom." Can you please name these principles? I would like to know such
> concrete spiritual information.
>
>
You have the links to Tao sites.
Go read them.
You can look up what the Buddha taught.
Go read it.
The 10 commandments you are no doubt aware of.
I will tell you why what Jesus is said to have done was important and
"outside the box".
He knew the prophecies, he knew the jews were expecting a liberating
messiah, one that would come with a sword to smite their oppressors.
How tempting it would have been to then take up arms, as he had soldiers
that were very ready to do just that.
Human nature would have had the vast majority of people fulfill this
prophecy with an insurrection.
Instead he allowed himself to be taken into custody.
IT DOESNT MATTER wether Jesus is a myth or not at this point, it matters
what principles he followed(or the principles that were attributed to
him)and he acted very differently than what human nature offers.
Now why do you want to continue with this line of questioning?
Perhaps you can point me to some humanist wisdom now.
Brandon J. Freels
Taoism restricts desire. Buddhism, through the four noble truths, restricts
desire. Judeo-Christian beliefs restrict desire through the 10 commandments.
> IT DOESNT MATTER wether Jesus is a myth or not at this point, it matters
> what principles he followed(or the principles that were attributed to
> him)and he acted very differently than what human nature offers.
What is so impressive about Jesus's nationalistic faith? Is it any different
than Hitler's [here we go again] faith in the german people?
What is so wrong with what "human nature" has to offer?
It seems to me that Surrealism is only interested in what human nature
offers. This is one of the main reasons why I despise Christianity, its
incredible pessimism, which sees man as a evil doer. What you don't realize
Leo is that I've read up on all these "faiths," I've seen the "vague
simularities," and I've realized that they are all tools to oppress desire,
imagination, love, and freedom.
Leo Sgouros
> It seems to me that Surrealism is only interested in what human nature
> offers. This is one of the main reasons why I despise Christianity, its
> incredible pessimism, which sees man as a evil doer. What you don't
realize
> Leo is that I've read up on all these "faiths," I've seen the "vague
> simularities," and I've realized that they are all tools to oppress
desire,
> imagination, love, and freedom.
>
>
Thats interesting.
What I get out of it is a beautiful and majestic universe, wo/man a
wonderful and complex being, and a feeling that there is hope for us all.I
have plenty of desire and imagination and what other people believe doesnt
affect this in the slightest.
I cannot help what you get from your experiences.
Now can we give this a rest?
Thanx!
Parry
Dale Houstman wrote:
> "Parry" <pa...@zxOMITmail.com> wrote in message
> > That haunted minds have moulded gods from their shadows doesn't distract
> > from the essential absurdity of the idea, and even the best minds are
> > susceptible to idiocy.
[more snippage]
> > In a surrealist forum, I don't feel
> > there should be any ambivalence on the matters of atheism and
> > materialism.
>
> This may be so: but it ain't gonna happen.
Then it’s regrettable that the plague has reached the spires of
surrealism.
> Those who suspend
> between belief/non-belief are often in the line of the man who invented the
> word "agnostic" Thomas Huxley, who felt it was an appropriate stance for a
> man of science. They don't want to shut themselves off from potential
> experience. I can understand this, although I don't think there is anything
> to lose and much to gain from taking the step.
I wouldn’t presume to judge past generations with the same harshness
that I apply to
contemporaries. Agnosticism may have been appropriate to the 19th
century, today it only
means that one feels there is no idea so silly that it shouldn’t be
dismissed out of hand. Having contempt for the concept that there is a
space daddy in the universal driver’s seat does not shut one off to
experiences. I don’t see how it could. But I have seen the god-idea work
as a circuit-breaker for people’s imaginations, and have seen minds run
to ground by such paralyzing activities as the contemplation of god’s
nature.
>
> It's just the blank statement of "idiocy" I don't want to buy. Maybe this is
> just some lingering remnant of humanism in me? Other than that the
> dissolution of theism is appealing to me. The dew-claw on a dog is
> vesitigial also, but I don't think they're idiots for retaining it.
> Evolution - physical or psychological - takes time.
Although I clarified my intent in the post you quoted above, you
continue to
mischaracterize my statement. I did not say all theists were idiots.
That would be pointless, like saying all Nazis are unintelligent. It
would be sheer insult, and it had not occurred to me to make such an
insult. I say that god-belief itself is an idiocy, a preposterous and
cowardly idea which affronts humanity with its very presence. Certainly
non-idiots can fall prey to certain idiocies.
>
> DMH
-- 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! =-----
Dale Houstman
"Parry" <pa...@zxOMITmail.com> wrote in message
> [much snippage for the sake of brevity]
> > > there should be any ambivalence on the matters of atheism and
> > > materialism.
> >
> > This may be so: but it ain't gonna happen.
>
> Then it's regrettable that the plague has reached the spires of
> surrealism.
I agree: I have just been here long enough to know that this forum ISN'T
about surrealism despite the word in the title. As you have no doubt noted
it is a mixture of frustrated artists and people with vague spiritual
beliefs that they think (I don't know why: it is something to do with the
popular misuses of the word "surrealism" itself I suppose) entitles them to
some claim on the philosophy. It is discouraging, but inoperable it seems.
>
> I wouldn't presume to judge past generations with the same harshness
> that I apply to contemporaries. Agnosticism may have been appropriate to
?>?19th century, today it only means that one feels there is no idea so
silly that it >shouldn't be dismissed out of hand.
Yes...
>Having contempt for the concept that there is a space daddy in the
universal >driver's seat does not shut one off to experiences.
I certainly agree.
> > It's just the blank statement of "idiocy" I don't want to buy. Maybe
this is
> > just some lingering remnant of humanism in me? Other than that the
> > dissolution of theism is appealing to me. The dew-claw on a dog is
> > vesitigial also, but I don't think they're idiots for retaining it.
> > Evolution - physical or psychological - takes time.
>
> Although I clarified my intent in the post you quoted above, you
> continue to mischaracterize my statement. I did not say all theists were
idiots.
I take your word for it, and maybe I did misread your thrust. Still, it
isn't that much of a leap from "theism is idiocy" to "theists are idiots."
And - as I said - it is probably my lingering humanism that gets me up to
protect even the self-deluded from these sorts of blanket statements.
>I say that god-belief itself is an idiocy, a preposterous and
> cowardly idea which affronts humanity with its very presence. Certainly
> non-idiots can fall prey to certain idiocies.
Okay. I can accept that. Of course the main difference with such systems as
theism might be that the belief is such an all-infusing drive and substance
for many theists that to declare such a separation between the belief and
the believer is quite a bit of hair-splitting. For others maybe not. Degrees
I guess...
DMH
Fascinan
>I agree: I have just been here long enough to know that this forum ISN'T
>about surrealism despite the word in the title. As you have no doubt noted
>it is a mixture of frustrated artists and people with vague spiritual
>beliefs that they think (I don't know
>why: it is something to do with the
>popular misuses of the word "surrealism" itself I suppose) entitles them to
>some claim on the philosophy. It is discouraging, but inoperable it seems.
If you do not wish to lead by example, and you are so discouraged, why, pray
tell, are you here at all? Are you a frustrated artist with vague spiritual
beliefs?
I post here because, for me, Surrealism is about letting the imagination play.
I write what I feel like writing at a particular moment, not worrying about so
and so's handbook of "acceptable" writing, or what I was taught by previous
teachers, or what Dale will think. If people like it, fine. If they don't
like it, fine. But, if one person gets an idea, or thinks about something in a
new way, from one of my writings, then that's great. Certainly, I do not write
to make some claim on the philosophy, as you say.
Fas
Brandon J. Freels
participated in an orgy with his father's concubines. After awakening from a
drunken stupor he saw them all lying about asleep in awkward positions which
he found most unattractive. He was utterly disgusted. So he jumped on his
horse and ran away from home, travelling high up to the hills away from
reality, where he wished to become a monk, where he wished to become
nothing. This was his first step toward becoming the Buddha.
The first historical Buddha really was a pathetic soul.
P.S. I'm really dying to here some "Universal Truths" from Buddha and Jesus.
Can you quote some, Leo?
And if these are truly "Universal" ideas then you can surely quote some
Babylonian, Assyrian, Egyptian, Aztec, Native American, Islamic, or
Aboriginal ideas that express the same idea, can't you?
Even when we strip away the "religion" the Buddha and Jesus are still
hideous and pathetic creatures. They are still running away from reality...
kristina
Surrelism is about the imagination, this is correct. However a bad
imagination, or indeed a
fitfully repressed one makes for (at best, a really bad/boring) surrealist.
This can not be debatable in terms of the quality -- it is of course
debatable whether a bad imagination or very limited one even comes close to
being surrealistic in context. Most people in this world have some form of
imagination... but it does not necessarily mean that they approach life in a
surreal manner.
The person that conciously tries to be surreal is totally in contradiction.
Either are or you are not! I believe this very sincerely and deeply.
Surrealism is also not outside of intellect and intelligence, emotion and
awareness. Putting a few "off the top of your head" words down does not
necessarily mean it is surreal in nature. I WISH there was an easier way to
say this, as it would appear that so many of the posts on here deal with
vague notions and attempts at surrealism.
IF you are TRYING to hard to be deep and creative and imaginative, you might
as well be in that confessional booth. Surrealism is not an outside act of
who we are, it is fundamental and part of us, like breathing. For me
anyway... but it has always been this way. Why is it so hard to
understand... what a hassle. Just becuase attempt to liberate your
imagination and delve into the creative, excuse me, but that is hardly a
guarantee of surrealism. I certainly do not subsicribe that surrealism
needs to be grounded by a "product" at the end. For me there is no
necessary end (it just comes about in some things). BUT, saying that
because you excercise your imagination you are surreal is naive.
There are heaps and heaps of examples of ridiculous questions posed here,
and posts, that are everything BUT surreal.
(My opinion and nothing more).
Kristina.
>
> Fas
kristina
--
k
s
"cythera" <lukeydN...@earthlink.net.invalid> wrote in message
news:330a908c...@usw-ex0101-005.remarq.com...
> Dale to Parry:
> >
> >As you have no doubt noted [a.s.] is a mixture of frustrated
> >artists
> Hi Dale; a somethin re the role of frustration in art: wouldn't
> you say that frustration is central to human nature/desire, and
> thus our creatings: wants or needs {desires} are filled,
> depleted, again, again. Art is a vein thru which some persons
> attempt to express a desire for a "wholeness"; & of course its
> also a container for that expression; this seems obvious, yes?
> You can call that almost-perpetually-frustrated desire an
> essential longing for beauty, god, sex, love, rightness...
> So here we talk/squabble about our personal desires; the
> problem? some people's apparent need for consensus {never
> gonna happen} 'seems' a barrier to the creating side of aart; I
> could be wrong on the last bit; anyone who will show me yr work,
> please let her rip!
> Dale, you know that at alt.arts. poetry.comments, the "regulars"
> pretty much say to the new arrivals, "Read the FAQ, & welcome to
> the group." And thus a lot of old ground is swiftly covered.
> SO I say unto thee, clearly some people love deconstructing
> theism here. Seconding Fas on request that you teach us what
> surrealism is {too}. Thanks.
You can't TEACH surrealism. You either are or you are not.
Reading is good... but it won't make you a surrealist. This sounds elitist,
but it isn't. Just like some people are creative and some are not -- there
are many reasons why. Just as some are god fearing citizens and some are
not, many reasons why.
Forcing something upon yourself seems ludicrous to me. Either one connects
to surrealism or not. That simple.
Kristina.
>
> >> > Evolution - physical or psychological - takes time.
> >DMH
kristina
"cythera" <lukeydN...@earthlink.net.invalid> wrote in message
news:330a908c...@usw-ex0101-005.remarq.com...
> Dale to Parry:
> >
> >As you have no doubt noted [a.s.] is a mixture of frustrated
> >artists
> Hi Dale; a somethin re the role of frustration in art: wouldn't
> you say that frustration is central to human nature/desire, and
> thus our creatings: wants or needs {desires} are filled,
> depleted, again, again. Art is a vein thru which some persons
> attempt to express a desire for a "wholeness"; & of course its
> also a container for that expression; this seems obvious, yes?
> You can call that almost-perpetually-frustrated desire an
> essential longing for beauty, god, sex, love, rightness...
> So here we talk/squabble about our personal desires; the
> problem? some people's apparent need for consensus {never
> gonna happen} 'seems' a barrier to the creating side of aart; I
> could be wrong on the last bit; anyone who will show me yr work,
> please let her rip!
> Dale, you know that at alt.arts. poetry.comments, the "regulars"
> pretty much say to the new arrivals, "Read the FAQ, & welcome to
> the group." And thus a lot of old ground is swiftly covered.
> SO I say unto thee, clearly some people love deconstructing
> theism here. Seconding Fas on request that you teach us what
> surrealism is {too}. Thanks.
And just a reminder... there is a website called Magnetic Fields that will
give you more than enough reading if you are that way inclined. Do you
always want everything on a platter? And the topic of what is and isn't
surrealism has been covered so intricately and deeply over months and months
that I have been reading -- what more do you want? Don't you take anything
in for yourself? I forgot, you're like Nik, you just ask the same old
tiresome questions over and over for sake of conversation. Show us your
creative magnificence instead!
Fascinan
>However a bad
>imagination, or indeed a
>fitfully repressed one makes for (at best, a really bad/boring) surrealist.
What the hell is a "bad imagination"? Again, this type of thought is guilty of
projecting the subjective (ie/ one's aesthetic sensibilties) upon *other*.
Efforts to be creative should be encouraged. If I told anyone that their poem
or painting or short story illustrated a *bad* imagination, this would only
reflect an egocentric arrogance. The impact of anything surreal can't be
measured. The qualitative value for anything surreal will be different for
everyone. A short poem may have a surreal impact on some, but not others.
>The person that conciously tries to be surreal is totally in contradiction.
>Either are or you are not!
Who says anyone is *trying* to be a Surrealist? Personally, I don't really
care if someone who claims to be a Surrealist tells me that I'm not one. I
write what I write because I feel like it, and it's a fun, creative outlet.
Are you implying that being a Surrealist is genetic? That would be a good
slogan : Born Surreal. This is ludicrous. You are implying that one's
imagination is something stagnant. The imagination, being an extension of
intellect, emotion, awareness - as you say - is dynamic. You can fuel the
imagination. Experiences can liberate the imagination.
>Putting a few "off the top of your head" words down does not
>necessarily mean it is surreal in nature.
Anyone can create something *surreal*. There is no international team of
surrealist judges who give out numbered scores for a poem or a painting or any
creative work.
Radical juxtapositions create surreal images. A few "off the wall" words
strung together may be a very *basic* example of Surrealism, but it is, I
believe, surrealist in content.
>as it would appear that so many of the posts on here deal with
>vague notions and attempts at surrealism.
I think time is an issue here. I would venture that most people don't have the
time to craft some grandiose work and post it. Alot of posts are on-the-fly
type of reactions to other posts. Now, Dale and Barrett probably put alot of
time into their own project, and that's great. I think it would be great if we
all had more time to create in this forum. On the other side of the token,
spontaneity is key for many creative ventures. A moment of creativity,
manifested in any medium, may seem to you a vague attempt at Surrealism, but
what are you expecting?
>There are heaps and heaps of examples of ridiculous questions posed here,
>and posts, that are everything BUT surreal.
>(My opinion and nothing more).
Geez. Can you give us an example of anything you've posted that could/should
be considered Surreal?
Fas
Nikolaus Maack
>Certainly, I do not write
>to make some claim on the philosophy, as you say.
In the never ending battle for who gets to own the word "surrealism", the
McDonalds Corporation hired a swat team of lawyers, armed with paper
canons and briefcases of stainless steel. They crushed the poets down,
slaughtered the fuckers -- ripped off their berets, tore off their black
turtleneck sweaters, and urinated in their empty, bloody, eye sockets.
The lawyers have blood dripping from their fangs tonight! The vests of
their three piece suits are no longer buttoned up, due to their massive,
engorged tummies. The sound of their digestion -- the growling and
gurgling -- is loud enough to scare away lions.
Coming soon to a fast food chain near you -- the Surrealist Burger. It
features an odd mixture of bile and acrylic paint, with just a hint of
passion. Next week, The Breton Burger. Slathered with onions, buried in
onions, totally drowning in onions. Where is the burger? I can't find it
under all these fucking onions!
And Dali, Dali, Dali -- his burger sells so well... My god, man, how can
we stand it? The Dali Burger *is* the BigMac! Tell the world, my friend
-- The Dali Burger is the BigMac!
Oh, woe, woe, my friend! Woe! Surrealism belongs to McDonalds, now. If
we are to call ourselves surrealists, we must man the deep-fryer, flip
burgers, and wear ugly polyester uniforms. Let us embrace our new
masters. Put down your pens and paintbrushes and put on your hairnets!
We must carry on the torch, no matter how daunting the task may seem.
kristina
> Kristina:
>
> >However a bad
> >imagination, or indeed a
> >fitfully repressed one makes for (at best, a really bad/boring)
surrealist.
>
> What the hell is a "bad imagination"? Again, this type of thought is
guilty of
> projecting the subjective (ie/ one's aesthetic sensibilties) upon *other*.
> Efforts to be creative should be encouraged. If I told anyone that their
poem
> or painting or short story illustrated a *bad* imagination, this would
only
> reflect an egocentric arrogance.
Why? Can't you have an opinion or be honest about someone's work? Or do
you think everything holds the same merit. This by the way (finished
product) has nothing to do with surrealism as such... not for me anyway.
BUT, if someone writes a really bad poem about their bleeding, poor soul,
etc it is their creativuty and outlet, fine... just don't try and tell me
they pushed it beyond the common boundaries of what most call poetry or
indeed art for that matter. Imagination is about "exploring" for me, and
surrealism covers that for me. I'm not arrogant because I have preferences.
That is a silly thing to say. I have a mind and am selective of what
appeals and what I consider good and bad. It is what we all do -- whether
you want to admit that you are just as human as everyone else is your cake!
Be in denial... no big deal for me.
The impact of anything surreal can't be
> measured. The qualitative value for anything surreal will be different
for
> everyone. A short poem may have a surreal impact on some, but not others.
Exactly, not everyone drinks orange juice! So... why pretend that all
things hold the same merit, and that thinking someone's work sucks is
arrogant. You are not making much sense so far.
>
> >The person that conciously tries to be surreal is totally in
contradiction.
> >Either are or you are not!
>
> Who says anyone is *trying* to be a Surrealist? Personally, I don't
really
> care if someone who claims to be a Surrealist tells me that I'm not one.
I
> write what I write because I feel like it, and it's a fun, creative
outlet.
I wasn't refering to anyone in particular there...
>
> Are you implying that being a Surrealist is genetic? That would be a good
> slogan : Born Surreal. This is ludicrous.
You are ludicrous! I did not say anywhere that you are "born" surrealist. I
said you either are or you are not. Sorry if that rubs you the wrong way,
this is what I think. If you can't use your mind to figure out that we all
gravitate to different things, and connect to different areas in life,
philosophies, approaches, etc... nothing I can do to clarify this for you.
No one is born anything... experiences and life in general come into it.
But this is obvious to me. Think for a minute before calling me ludicrous.
You are implying that one's
> imagination is something stagnant. The imagination, being an extension of
> intellect, emotion, awareness - as you say - is dynamic. You can fuel the
> imagination. Experiences can liberate the imagination.
The imagination can be an integral and wonderful part of us, it already is.
Some utilise it more creatively, others don't. That simple.
>
> >Putting a few "off the top of your head" words down does not
> >necessarily mean it is surreal in nature.
>
> Anyone can create something *surreal*. There is no international team of
> surrealist judges who give out numbered scores for a poem or a painting or
any
> creative work.
I am not saying that creativity is something a few have the key to. I am
saying that some connect to that part of themselves, and it becomes and is a
fundamental part of who they are. Others don't to the same extent.
> Radical juxtapositions create surreal images. A few "off the wall" words
> strung together may be a very *basic* example of Surrealism, but it is, I
> believe, surrealist in content
>
>
> >as it would appear that so many of the posts on here deal with
> >vague notions and attempts at surrealism.
>
> I think time is an issue here. I would venture that most people don't
have the
> time to craft some grandiose work and post it. Alot of posts are
on-the-fly
> type of reactions to other posts. Now, Dale and Barrett probably put alot
of
> time into their own project, and that's great. I think it would be great
if we
> all had more time to create in this forum. On the other side of the
token,
> spontaneity is key for many creative ventures. A moment of creativity,
> manifested in any medium, may seem to you a vague attempt at Surrealism,
but
> what are you expecting?
Yes, time is an issue, but so is what we all respond to -- and we all have
different ideas and priorities in terms of which posts we do respond to.
Just like everything else, we are all individuals with preferences. I do
not expect anything.
>
> >There are heaps and heaps of examples of ridiculous questions posed
here,
> >and posts, that are everything BUT surreal.
> >(My opinion and nothing more).
>
> Geez. Can you give us an example of anything you've posted that
could/should
> be considered Surreal?
Whatever pulls your strings sweetie. Look Fas, you can try and argue, and
rub me up the wrong way, but it really is of no big consequence to me.
Honestly. I am no more an asshole in here with my posts than anyone
else.... I speak my mind and do it as I do. Don't like it, no problem.
I'm fine with that. As for what I've posted that is surreal? I'd say this
is pretty surreal wouldn't you? It's all subjective... or don't you have a
mind of your own?!
Kristina.
>
> Fas
Fascinan
>Why? Can't you have an opinion or be honest about someone's work? Or do
>you think everything holds the same merit.
Sure, voice your opinion and be honest about someone's work -- fantastic. But,
when you sit back and say, "this is a lot of crap!" or "I see alot of
unimaginative crap in here!" I think that it's only fair that you submit some
of your own work.
>I'm not arrogant because I have preferences.
Of course not. But how about a little constructive criticism instead of the
aloof attitude?
>Exactly, not everyone drinks orange juice! So... why pretend that all
>things hold the same merit, and that thinking someone's work sucks is
>arrogant. You are not making much sense so far.
When it comes to being creative I say it's all good. Merit is relative.
>You are ludicrous! I did not say anywhere that you are "born" surrealist. I
>said you either are or you are not.
Ah, black and white -- so neat.
>If you can't use your mind to figure out that we all
>gravitate to different things, and connect to different areas in life,
>philosophies, approaches, etc... nothing I can do to clarify this for you.
Of course we do. I am saying that the things we connect to change, our
philosophies change, etc. I think it's ludicrous to say that someone who
doesn't utilise his/her creativity at one point in life won't change. *Anyone*
can be a Surrealist. Why not focus on galvanizing Surrealism instead of
pointing out what you regard as irrelevancies or weak efforts?
>I am not saying that creativity is something a few have the key to. I am
>saying that some connect to that part of themselves, and it becomes and is a
>fundamental part of who they are. Others don't to the same extent.
I agree.
>Whatever pulls your strings sweetie. Look Fas, you can try and argue, and
>rub me up the wrong way, but it really is of no big consequence to me.
nice...
Fas
Aza Zaz
> > before...
>
>
What is repression?
The channeling of desire away from bad things, and toward good things,
as defined by any movement. Every movement represses desire. (The
nature of good and bad in a movement can have texture, or not, depending
on the age of the movement. As times goes by, to remain in the game,
strictures become less black and white and more accomodating. Otherwise
the movement becomes moribund. To delay death, any movement wheezingly
tries to repattern itself, in order to keep supporters and thus stay
alive, while the basic theme of the ideas remains the same. In a sense
the repatterning is equivalent to becoming wiser. As this goes on, the
end result is the blanding out of the movement. The original movement
may lie dormant on text, and be rediscovered and reused in an age of
greater luxury and thus less need for it to be precisely useful.)
Any movement represses desire - with the possible exception of ideal
surrealism (which is impossible). Repression redirects desire selfishly
in the pursuit of the movement's desires. Religion directs the channels
of desire onto god, intellectualism to logical answers, non-ideal
surrealism to strange art, and approximately ideal activities.
A movement is a group of ideas that got that spark of life, which
enabled them to link up, get an identifying name, and ideally get a
foothold with a large group of people.
The channels of desire are collector pits that attain greater and
greater usefulness for the originals, for example in terms of comfort to
the followers, and this counteracts lifes tendency to destroy
structures. Worshipping god has many auxilary bonuses, as well.
Additionally, some structures may be so useful that they become part of
the evolutionary cycle and are taken out of circulation, which means out
of consciousness. It is exceedingly unlikely that this will ever happen
to any movement anytime soon.
> Nik
> --
> DH says: "Nik is an idiot: every idea he has is a mistake."
> The Nik Maack Art Gallery
> http://members.xoom.com/gotnik/
Leo Sgouros
>
> P.S. I'm really dying to here some "Universal Truths" from Buddha and
Jesus.
> Can you quote some, Leo?
>
surrealism and theism dont co-exist in all spaces
especially not in your vast empty ones
give it a rest brandon ok buddy
Dale Houstman
I now stand with Brandon, awaiting your list of "universal truths."
DMH
scot...@earthlink.net
>Are you implying that being a Surrealist is genetic? That would be a good
>slogan : Born Surreal. This is ludicrous.
From my personalized view of things I don't think this is ludicrous.
I think human beings are born surrealists.
barrett john erickson
> Kristina:
> >If you can't use your mind to figure out that we all
> >gravitate to different things, and connect to different areas
in life,
> >philosophies, approaches, etc... nothing I can do to clarify
this for you.
Fas:
> Of course we do. I am saying that the things we connect to
change, our
> philosophies change, etc. I think it's ludicrous to say that
someone who
> doesn't utilise his/her creativity at one point in life won't
change. *Anyone*
> can be a Surrealist. Why not focus on galvanizing Surrealism
instead of
> pointing out what you regard as irrelevancies or weak efforts?
the point Kristina is making is that we all have a strange
attractor at the core of our living. that strange attractor is
either "the surrealist project" or it is not. she has correctly
observed, that most people here do not have the surrealist project
at the core of their living.
yes, that attractor can change (i agree with Scott that we are all
born surrealist, but most move away from this as they make the
compromises that modern living demands).
and contrary to your assertion, several of us in alt.surrealism
have been trying for quite some time (5 years in my case) to aid
such transitions to "surrealism" whenever we sense the potential.
but no matter how often some of us point out how certain paths
diverge from "surrealism", no matter how patiently we try to
explain why those paths are divergent, and no matter how often we
offer a surrealist analysis of the same position as
counter-example, the same people keep making the same statements
that demonstrate the same fundamental misunderstandings.
for instance--
in another post you wrote:
> Anyone can create something *surreal*. There is no
international team of
> surrealist judges who give out numbered scores for a poem or a
painting or any
> creative work.
> Radical juxtapositions create surreal images. A few "off the
wall" words
> strung together may be a very *basic* example of Surrealism, but
it is, I
> believe, surrealist in content.
again: "surreal" is not an attribute that can be found in
"images", so obviously, radical juxtapositions do not "create
surreal images" and "a few 'off the wall' words strung together"
are _neither_ an "example of Surrealism", or "surrealist in
content."
and no, "anyone" cannot "create something *surreal*".
"surrealism" can only be found in a particular approach to the
_human process_ of exploration and investigation undertaken in the
effort to liberate the imagination and integrate it into daily
living. for a surrealist, poetry is found in the process of
living creatively -- paintings, poems, etc., are only artifacts of
this process.
a failure to understand this point doesn't mean someone has no
affinity with "surrealism", but it is one of the easiest ways i've
found to identify those who have something like "creative
expression" as their main attractor rather than "surrealism".
and for further clarification, the only reason there is "no
international team of surrealist judges who give out numbered
scores for a poem or a painting or any creative work" is because
there are no qualities in any such work that can be judged as
indicators or counter-indicators of a "surrealist". it's just not
that simple. if it were, there _would_ be judges, because there
_is_ a surrealist movement that has a fairly clear idea of what it
means to be a surrealist and an even clearer idea of what sort of
people are not surrealists. and it would be very useful to be
able to make quicker and clearer assessments as to who is actually
a surrealist as opposed to those who only think they are because
they don't (yet?) know "surrealism" as it exists among
surrealists.
now, if you don't care if someone thinks you are or are not a
surrealist that's fine. but i'm tired of the repeated accusation
that we're only interested in attacking people for not being
surrealist enough and aren't doing anything to help anyone
understand surrealism.
the reality is that some people are just unwilling or unable to
understand, yet persist in claiming they do.
-- barrett
BLUE FEATHERS #3 is now available
http://www.MagneticFields.org/blue/
bar...@MagneticFields.org
http://www.MagneticFields.org/
surrealists in minnesota
Sur...@MagneticFields.org
==============================================
"Everything tends to make us believe that there exists a
certain point of the mind at which life and death, the real and
the imagined, past and future, the communicable and the
incommunicable, high and low, cease to be perceived as
contradictions."
...André Breton
==============================================
Andrea Chen
>
> And Dali, Dali, Dali -- his burger sells so well... My god, man, how can
> we stand it? The Dali Burger *is* the BigMac! Tell the world, my friend
> -- The Dali Burger is the BigMac!
Why oppose Dali? Here is Breton (What Is Surrealism?) on Dali. Why is
this early view invalid because Breton later became jealous. Here he
gives dali credit for the movement.
Source= http://www-e815.fnal.gov/~romosan/surrealism.html
> This experimenting has regained momentum under the
> master-impulse given to it by Salvador Dali, whose exceptional interior ``boiling'' has been for surrealism, during the whole of this period, an
> invaluable ferment. As Guy Mangeot has very rightly pointed out in his History of Surrealism . . . Dali has endowed surrealism with an
> instrument of primary importance, in particular the paranoiac-critical method, which has immediately shown itself capable of being applied with
> equal success to painting, poetry, the cinema, to the construction of typical surrealist objects, to fashions, to sculpture and even, if necessary, to
> all manner of exegesis.
Nikolaus Maack
> the point Kristina is making is that we all have a strange
> attractor at the core of our living. that strange attractor is
> either "the surrealist project" or it is not. she has correctly
> observed, that most people here do not have the surrealist project
> at the core of their living.
So long as we're handing out "official surrealist" badges, I do not see
you, Barrett, as having the surrealist project at your core. If you do
have it, you hide it. You come across very much like an old, crusty
university professor. You're a historian, and you teach history, but you
will never BE history.
History is a liquid, and you are so very solid and stationary. A boulder
in the stream, watching it all rush by. This is a liberated imagination?
I think not.
If you really want to convert people with potential to your cause, you
must do more than simply spout surrealist dogma.
> for a surrealist, poetry is found in the process of
> living creatively -- paintings, poems, etc., are only artifacts of
> this process.
If you live creatively, why is it that we never see your creativity here,
in this newsgroup? Do you shut off your creativity when amongst us? Even
Dale posts the occasional poem. What do you do, here, besides theorize?
And shouldn't theory come out with as much passion and vitality as a poem?
You speak surrealism like a weary old hound on the porch, moaning
arthritically in its dozing summer sleep. You theorize with all the
passion of an accountant adding up numbers. Limp and drab and lifeless,
you avoid any real conflict, any real pleasure, any messiness that arises
in this newsgroup. Afraid of getting dirty? That doesn't seem surrealist
to me.
Show us what's really going on inside of you. Where is your surrealist
nature? Why do you hide it from us? This is why your words are so
uninteresting, unchanging. Where is thisimagination of yours of which you
speak so often?
> the reality is that some people are just unwilling or unable to
> understand, yet persist in claiming they do.
Are you a possible example? You seem so detached, almost bored with
surrealism as you speak it. Maybe all these years you've been preaching
the wrong theories, the wrong ideas, passionlessly doling out scoops of
gray, molding lard, and calling it "liberty of the imagination".
Leo Sgouros
> >
> Is this an admission you can't deliver on your Big Statement?
>
my big statement shouldnt need to be big or stated
> I now stand with Brandon, awaiting your list of "universal truths."
of course you will hold his hand now
next time hold out for a bigger payoff okay thanks
tolerance
respect
honor
those really dumb words
and you know what?
you two look marvelous and sing so sweetly sometimes
>
> DMH
>
>
>
Andrea Chen
> > the reality is that some people are just unwilling or unable to
> > understand, yet persist in claiming they do.
>
> Are you a possible example? You seem so detached, almost bored with
> surrealism as you speak it. Maybe all these years you've been preaching
> the wrong theories, the wrong ideas, passionlessly doling out scoops of
> gray, molding lard, and calling it "liberty of the imagination".
>
I have to disagree with this. Barrett has not doled out "theories or
ideas." These can be examined and tested. Barrett doles out rhetoric,
words which sound nice and impressive, but have no meaning. And Barrett
isn't a "possible example." He is a perfect example of dead,
meaningless dogma which in a lovely twisting of reality spits it's grey,
rancid (but not bubbling) lard into it's eyes and then sees it
everywhere except in his self and inscure lads such as Dale who grovel
before him even though they're his betters. The ritual belief system
can be seen in the following. Dali is bad despite the fact that he was
once the hero. Why? Because Breton rejected him. Yet Breton also
rejected Aragon and hated him far more than Dali. Yet Aragon is good.
Theory and logic would recognize this as a contradiction. Dale
(stupid), Brandon (stupider) and Barrett (stupidist) are unable to.
This is because they live by unexamined dogma.
Similarly they reject Taoism and other mystical philosophies as
incompatible with surrealism. Yet these were a heavy influence from the
beginning. Breton went on a bit of ideological cleansing after he found
the true faith of communism (but it was more a matter of local (Breton
didn't like any influences that h couldn't control) politics rather than
ideology,) but as an interview I posted showed he was quite a Taoist at
the end.
In addition Oija boards, the I Ching and other games were popular for
the simple reason that these things are a language for the unconscious,
they allow one to project hidden thoughts. Nor are other religious
approaches invalid. For example if Dale could free himself (like a good
Buddhist) from the desire to correct Nik (because Dale is a good boy and
Nik is bad and Dale wants his mommy (who is dead and watching from the
ozone) to see how he treats bad boys) then Dale might be able to get on
with his life and all this really cool stuff which is surrealism and
which quite frankly no one knows what it is exactly, but for sure we
know it ISN'T all this preaching and pompous "I'm a surrealist and
you're not. Nah nah nah nah!" pontificated by stupidist (Barrett) and
echoed by stupider (Brandon) and poor stupid Dale) who we all like even
though we pity him and try to help him though he doesn't appreciate it.
Nikolaus Maack
[Barrett, Dale, and Brandon ignore those aspects of surrealism that do not
suit them.]
I agree entirely. They do tend to ignore facts and history when they
don't appeal to their own natures. You can almost hear them shuffling
their feet when you say, "But didn't Breton get all mystical, later in
life?"
"Sure, sure," they say. "But, you know, he was getting old and
feeble-minded and... He was wrong. No, no, not wrong... Breton is never
wrong. He was, uh, misguided. Yeah."
Or at least, I think that's what they'd say, if they ever actually took
the time to address this issue.
Another interesting trick these three pull -- are they communists or not?
Was it my imagination, Andrea, or were Dale, Barrett and Brandon once
preaching right out of Mao's little red book? They seem to have mellowed
on this issue. Now they just hate corporations -- a sort of Ad Busters
attitude taken to an extreme -- and no longer talk about communism
what-so-ever.
Dale, Barrett, Brandon -- are you still communists? Do you think Breton
was right to be a hard core commie, or was he misguided?
> In addition Oija boards, the I Ching and other games were popular for
> the simple reason that these things are a language for the unconscious,
> they allow one to project hidden thoughts. Nor are other religious
> approaches invalid.
That's an issue I've raised a couple of times, and gotten no response on
from the "hard core" surrealists -- if surrealism can pick up a tarot deck
and use it as a tool to understand subconscious impulses, why not do the
same with Christianity, or Buddhism, or Taoism, or any religious concept?
Breton himself seemed to think there was promise, here.
Someone in alt.surrealism once said that surrealists "demystified" tarot
when they used it in their games. Can't religion be "demystified" in
exactly the same way, and be put to good use? When a university
offers a course that studies a particular religion, they attempt to
demystify it. Presumably we can do the same thing.
Supposedly the argument against this is that religion has a spooky power
it uses to control the masses. I think Brandon said that the very concept
of God is one of superiority and inferiority, and therefore, God cannot be
a surrealist tool. (You know Brandon and his whole obsession with Power.)
But like all tools, we can tinker. We say the tarot deck does not tap the
universe but my own subconscious. Poof! It is so. We say that God is
not a superior, but an equal. Poof! He is now my toy, my friend, my
equal. He will not lord it over me. I think of God as a Jungian
archetype -- the wise old man, the wizard, the mystic -- as opposed to
some kind of Super Deity who makes atoms spin properly.
For some reason someone -- I think it was Brandon -- said you can't do
this. You can't wave a wand and make God an equal, or even an inferior.
Well, why not? We can do it with tarot. Why not with Jesus? Or Buddha?
or Lao Tzu?
I may be babbling. Oh well. I'll stop now.
Nikolaus Maack
> For some reason someone -- I think it was Brandon -- said you can't do
> this. You can't wave a wand and make God an equal, or even an inferior.
> Well, why not? We can do it with tarot. Why not with Jesus? Or Buddha?
> or Lao Tzu?
Silly me. I should have added -- I have done this. It can be done. My
God is an imaginary friend I use as a sort of substanceless surrealist
tarot deck.
Fascinan
>If you really want to convert people with potential to your cause, you
>must do more than simply spout surrealist dogma.
I agree. Being that Barrett and Dale meld to form the Napolean of Surrealism,
it's quite odd that we've never seen Barrett reveal slivers of his creative
process. As Nik notes, Dale, at least, posted some his poems from the mid 80s.
The only artifacts of Barrett's creative process are doctrines, critical
analysis, and "corrections" -- not exactly the sense of play, wonder, and
wildness one could expect from a liberated imagination.
Fas
Andrea Chen
>
> I agree entirely. They do tend to ignore facts and history when they
> don't appeal to their own natures. You can almost hear them shuffling
> their feet when you say, "But didn't Breton get all mystical, later in
> life?"
>
Actually he used mysticism from the beginning. Gods, myths etc. are
(often) projections of the unconscious. In the mid twenties (as he
turned communist) there was a turf battle and the first of the purges.
A number of people were condemned for being *too mystical* for getting
deeply into magic etc. However the various motifs, the ouji boards etc.
remained valid tools.
>
> Another interesting trick these three pull -- are they communists or not?
> Was it my imagination, Andrea, or were Dale, Barrett and Brandon once
> preaching right out of Mao's little red book?
Brandon claimed to be communist. I forget if he was Maoist. He was
declaring that communism was the only philosophy compatibe with
surrealism though he was completely ignorant of it. Later he decided
communism was "incompatible" with surrealism.
> They seem to have mellowed
> on this issue. Now they just hate corporations
They don't hate corporations. They survive because of corporations.
Dale has declared that walking is bad. How could he drive without the
infrastructure which makes them possible? He certainly doesn't have any
alternative. You should have heard him talk about anarchy. It was a
far right definition, a complete lack of order, no knowledge of Bukanin
etc. even though he claimed to be a "classical anarchist." Dale likes
to complain about corporations just like 13 year olds like to claim
about their mother. It's a symptom of dependant love. Dale is caught
in a time warp. He's a fifties, subruban blue stocking. Notice how he
says all people are the same? He's never dealt with anyone outside of
his culture, never been any place where people are different. A part of
spoiled middle class kidism is being very resentful of that which feeds
you and produces your "alternative" art etc.
-- a sort of Ad Busters
> attitude taken to an extreme -- and no longer talk about communism
> what-so-ever.
>
>
> > In addition Oija boards, the I Ching and other games were popular for
> > the simple reason that these things are a language for the unconscious,
> > they allow one to project hidden thoughts. Nor are other religious
> > approaches invalid.
>
> That's an issue I've raised a couple of times, and gotten no response on
> from the "hard core" surrealists -- if surrealism can pick up a tarot deck
> and use it as a tool to understand subconscious impulses, why not do the
> same with Christianity, or Buddhism, or Taoism, or any religious concept?
> Breton himself seemed to think there was promise, here.
>
> Someone in alt.surrealism once said that surrealists "demystified" tarot
> when they used it in their games. Can't religion be "demystified" in
> exactly the same way, and be put to good use?
Probably. But you are facing a dogma. Surrealism was despite Breton's
(and other's) rigidity alive and feeling the world. It became cool.
People like stupid (Dale,) stupider (Brandon) and stupidiest (Barrett)
find this really cool thing and because they want to be cool they say
that's what they are. But remember you're dealing with a fifties junior
high clique here. It's got rules and it isn't into questioning. One of
the rules is that Nik is uncool. Another is that one uses impressive,
sounding meaningless words. As you ask: What is "demystified?" They
*know*
All I can do is point out that the Tarot uses chance to lay out a set
of concepts. The mind attaches realities to these things. How it does
so is a "mystery," but often the patterns created are from the
unconscious. They are not things which would occur to us in our normal
states of mind. Why is this? More observation and theory would
follow. It's endless and exciting. A voyage of discovery.
But our 3 stooges stop as the concept of "demystfied." They don't know
what this means, it's a magical, mystical term but it's comforting, a
spell to keep out reality. They them name this state "wonder" and "awe"
and "liberation of the imagination." They deny these wonderful states
to others (because they are so cool!)
Naturally they don't want to explore the things you talk about, it
would be analyzing what they do.
It's an example of "editing reality," a bhavior which fascinates me and
which I have experimented with, it's also something you previously
failed to understand.
These people reject the study of religion and magic because they have
erected a reality based on the most dogmatic aspects of these things.
They must rejct all faiths which are not theirs and they do so by a
complete lack of interest.
When a university
> offers a course that studies a particular religion, they attempt to
> demystify it. Presumably we can do the same thing.
>
> Supposedly the argument against this is that religion has a spooky power
> it uses to control the masses. I think Brandon said that the very concept
> of God is one of superiority and inferiority, and therefore, God cannot be
> a surrealist tool. (You know Brandon and his whole obsession with Power.)
>
> But like all tools, we can tinker. We say the tarot deck does not tap the
> universe but my own subconscious. Poof! It is so. We say that God is
> not a superior, but an equal. Poof! He is now my toy, my friend, my
> equal. He will not lord it over me. I think of God as a Jungian
> archetype -- the wise old man, the wizard, the mystic -- as opposed to
> some kind of Super Deity who makes atoms spin properly.
>
> For some reason someone -- I think it was Brandon -- said you can't do
> this. You can't wave a wand and make God an equal, or even an inferior.
> Well, why not? We can do it with tarot. Why not with Jesus? Or Buddha?
> or Lao Tzu?
>
> I may be babbling. Oh well. I'll stop now.
>
Parry
> this forum ISN'T
> it is a mixture of frustrated artists and people with vague spiritual
> beliefs that they think (I don't know why: it is something to do with the
> popular misuses of the word "surrealism" itself I suppose) entitles them to
> some claim on the philosophy. It is discouraging, but inoperable it seems.
As far as I know, this is the only discussion forum on inter/usenet that
carries the name "surrealism." If you feel it is an unworthy
representative, than any effort to combat the trivialization of
surrealism is admirable.
Andrea Chen
> The only artifacts of Barrett's creative process are doctrines, critical
> analysis, and "corrections" --
I'm getting sick of this. Show me one place where stupidist has
engaged in "critical analysis?" Analysis requires precise meaning, the
employment of logics (formal and informal) to these and an activity of
mind. I've never seen Barrett do anything but spout a list of buzzwords
designed to silence people because they don't know what these words
mean, it's rhetorical hyposis and bluster. I've never seen much in the
way of doctrines if doctrines ar considered a set of beliefs or goals
which can be analyzed, nor corrections if corrections are considered
specific referances to actual facts rather than statements like: "many
people talk about surrealism but don't know what they're talking about
but I do because I'm created the surrealist project which means whatever
I say is true."
Don't give Barrett credit where none is due.
Fascinan
>I've never seen Barrett do anything but spout a list of buzzwords
>designed to silence people because they don't know what these words
>mean, it's rhetorical hyposis and bluster.
Hi. uhh, what does hyposis mean?
(heh, sorry)
Brandon J. Freels
> > A serious question -- does "intellectualism" repress desire?
I think it can in certain cases, but not all. For example, if someone has a
desire to eat a chocolate cake, but they intellectually conclude not to for
the cake will have too many calories [as Aza puts it "The channeling of
desire away from bad things," etc...].
But when intellectualism is aware of repression it can subvert it, and
subversion is a highly important part of the struggling for freedom. I think
being aware of where repression "takes place" is a highly important feature
of the Surrealist Project, and thus what you have termed as
"intellectualism" is also an important a feature of the Surrealist Project.
Surely, freedom can be held by those who are untouched by our repressive
culture without "intellectualism," but for those that exist within this
cultural complex it can and must be used as a weapon to combat repression.
Actually, before we go any further we should define what you mean by
"intellectualism" and "emotionalism." How are they different? How are they
the same? Can you pin down what you mean by these words so we can have a
coherent conversation?
Andrea Chen
>
> Hi. uhh, what does hyposis mean?
It's the proper way to spell hype-osis as in "THE surrealist
project(tm)" or "complete freedom from repression(tm)" (a state achieved
through THE surrealist project(tm) along with "libration of the
imagination(tm))"
Hope this helps.
Fascinan
>That is the problem -- simply put you lack the more subtle
>movements of life, and therefore you will no doubt always remain pissed off
>with everyone elses achievements, to console your frigid little mind. Some
>things just don't change do they.
Didn't you have somewhere to go? You seem to be the one who is peeved. Your
incessant prigging speaks volumes of your current state of mind -- relax, have
a good trip, bon voyagee.
I can imagine hordes of frightened animals running out of the bush, pestered
into madness by the Kristinanator. Surreal: yes or no? The answer is no, of
course. This is a very likely scenario.
But seriously, go light on the invectives against baggage clerks and hotel
managment, unless, of course, they claim to be surrealists.
Fas
Andrea Chen
>
> On the note of what you say above -- you ALSO seem to be judging the
> "surreal" nature of people on this group by "your" interpretation of what
> constitutes "surreal". However, their is no substance or even interest in
> what you write.
Yes there is. There are facts which can be proven. For example:
- Breton credited Dali with driving the movement.
- Breton later fell out with Dali.
- The 3 stooges think Dali is bad and reject his earlier contributions.
- Breton and Aragon helped found surrealism.
- Breton later fell out with Aragon.
- The 3 stooges do not consistently apply their logic. Aragon remains
good.
Similarly I deal with the role of the tarot and the I Ching in
surrealism. Again you can check this out. Breton even put a tarot card
on the cover of one of his books.
There are at least points and details in what I write. You assert
there is "no substance" or "interest." I just proved you wrong. You
are a liar. History is substance. To some it is of interest. You
could argue against my opinions, but like the 3 stooges you wish to wave
a magic wand and make them dissapear.
I can find no detail relating to surrealism in your post. Simply
assertions about how bad I am. I will be happy to admit I tease Dale
and friends, that's because they always say nasty things about me. But
I do raise points and make arguments. They don't. You don't.
Prove me wrong. Answer the following point.
If Breton and other histprical surrealists found ideas of value in
Taoism, how can one claim that they are not legitimate ideas in the
surrealism? This doesn't mean that one need embrace these notions, but
on what grounds does one claim that anyone who employs them is by
definition a non surrealist? Doesn't it become absurd to throw Breton
out of the movement?
Admitedly I have done this. I threw Breton out months ago, but I was
aware I was being absurd and perhaps killing the Buddha.
Dale Houstman
"Parry" <pa...@zxOMITmail.com> wrote in message
news:38B6D9...@zxOMITmail.com...
> Dale Houstman wrote:
> > this forum ISN'T
> > about surrealism despite the word in the title. As you have no doubt
noted
> > it is a mixture of frustrated artists and people with vague spiritual
> > beliefs that they think (I don't know why: it is something to do with
the
> > popular misuses of the word "surrealism" itself I suppose) entitles them
to
> > some claim on the philosophy. It is discouraging, but inoperable it
seems.
>
> As far as I know, this is the only discussion forum on inter/usenet that
> carries the name "surrealism." If you feel it is an unworthy
> representative, than any effort to combat the trivialization of
> surrealism is admirable.
>
is an unworthy representative, I know it is. Most of the work of surrealism
(almost 100%) goes on quite actively outside this forum. The only reason I
attend to it at all is because - every once in a eon - a new person shows up
who is anxious to know what surrealism might be concerned about. To leave
the explanation to this rudderless band of subliterates and personalists and
"creative artists" and literary scene rejects and purveyors of repetitive
nonsense and New Age theists and nutopian power geckos is to abandon any
potential surrealists to a pack of yawping loonies.
But - that said - welcome!
Dale "Nik's Puppet" Houstman
Brandon J. Freels
> However, when replying to you AND Nik , it is hard to have an intelligent
> conversation becuase you simply do not understand what people are saying.
Its not that they don't understand, its that they *refuse* to admit that
they understand. I killfiled Andrea a long time ago. Its best to just let
her evaporate.
Fascinan
>The only reason I
>attend to it at all is because - every once in a eon - a new person shows up
>who is anxious to know what surrealism might be concerned about. To leave
>the explanation to this rudderless band of subliterates and personalists and
>"creative artists" and literary scene rejects and purveyors of repetitive
>nonsense and New Age theists and nutopian power geckos is to abandon any
>potential surrealists to a pack of yawping loonies.
The surrealist android shows resentment -- evolution or an angry programmer?
The first step Dale needs to take in liberating his own imagination is to move
past his self-importance, and make efforts to climb out of the cess pool of
bitterness which he continues to flay about in. If Dale became a positive
purveyor of Surrealism, and was considerate, and helped little old ladies
across the street.....now that would be surreal -- a real breakthrough indeed.
Dale Houstman
"Brandon J. Freels" <fre...@teleport.com> wrote in message
news:vvDt4.21878$yn3.1...@news1.teleport.com...
Yes, I took her out of killfile just a little while ago (maybe because I
thought possibly one of her acquaintances had brained her with a ugly stick,
or she had choked on her falcon), and only felt the urge to respond to one
of her repetitious and one-tracked posts on POWER. It is sad however to see
that she is still flogging the only "idea" she ever managed to grasp: that
ALL human interaction is a matter of power. It's the overwhelming
patheticism of this that makes me avoid her, and I'm now going back to it
while she blathers on a little while with her handpuppets Nik and the boys.
DMH
Andrea Chen
>
> >
> > Yes there is. There are facts which can be proven. For example:
> >
> > - Breton credited Dali with driving the movement.
> > - Breton later fell out with Dali.
> > - The 3 stooges think Dali is bad and reject his earlier contributions.
> >
> > - Breton and Aragon helped found surrealism.
> > - Breton later fell out with Aragon.
> > - The 3 stooges do not consistently apply their logic. Aragon remains
> > good.
>
> trivialities to occupy yourself with.
It was not me who concerned myself with such trivialities and started
acting as thought police. Many people have been treated rudely for
expressing an interest in Dali, a number left the group as a
consequence. It's not me who did this. I simply pointed out the
contradiction in this approach.
> I didn't realise that a person is not
> allowed to have an opinion of their own, but you clearly see something wrong
> with the fact that people have their own views and thoughts.
I point out facts such as Dali was considered important in early and
mid thirties and that his "paranoic critical method" was considered a
key. If someone doesn't car for Dali that's fine, but it's not me who
claimed he was unacceptable in surrealism. It was not me who stated
"Dali is not allowed!"
So why are you attacking me for the behavior of your friends.
> As mentioned I have no desire (being the crucial word here) to have a little
> "history exam -- test" with you.
I didn't ask for your desires. I simply responded to your claim that
there was "no content" in my post. I pointed out the content and now
you change the subject and bring up your desires. Poor dear.
> arguing
> this old and worn point with you is of no interest to me.
Agreed. Arguing a point is of no interest to you. You like to make
accusations based on faith.
> I really have no
> need to "prove" myself, unlike you.
You really just said this?! Then why are you so huffy? I think I
could have a lot of fun with you little girl.
> Andrea, bottom line -- Everyone has personal thoughts and beliefs. And no
> one is going to find another person who totally agrees with their ideas on
> life. This is no different here.
But it was Talysman, Nik and others have been fiercely attacked for
arguing that taoisim was legitimate. There was *no tolerance* for their
ideas. I simply asked why Taoism is *unacceptable," I didn't say that
one must accept it. It wasn't me who said these thoughts are not
allowed. You are a hypocrite.
>
Dale Houstman
"kristina" <starf...@start.com.au> wrote in message
news:38b7...@news.iprimus.com.au...
>
> "Andrea Chen" <fallin...@earthlink.net> wrote in message
> news:38B700...@earthlink.net...
> > >
> > >
> > > On the note of what you say above -- you ALSO seem to be judging the
> > > "surreal" nature of people on this group by "your" interpretation of
> what
> > > constitutes "surreal". However, their is no substance or even
interest
> in
> > > what you write.
> >
> >
> >
> > - Breton credited Dali with driving the movement.
> > - Breton later fell out with Dali.
> > - The 3 stooges think Dali is bad and reject his earlier contributions.
> >
> > - Breton and Aragon helped found surrealism.
> > - Breton later fell out with Aragon.
> > - The 3 stooges do not consistently apply their logic. Aragon remains
> > good.
>
> Firstly, who do you think you are? "The thought police?" Such little
not
> allowed to have an opinion of their own, but you clearly see something
wrong
you,
> a fucking priest?
Not only this Kristina, but she even gets these "facts" wrong, although
bringing that to her attention (which she has little of), is the same as
bringing anything up to her genetic offal Nik.
1. Breton does indeed give Dail some credit for publicizing the surrealist
movement, but his falling out with him is very real, and based on specific
items, mainly fascism and capitalist buffoonery and theism.
2. Who doesn't know that Breton fell out with Aragon? And why is it
important to reiterate the obvious?
3. I don't know about Brandon (the third Stooge) but Barrett and I have
both publicly and privately discussed the validity of Dali's early works. I
went into that much vaunted (by Nik) personal mode on this very point
several times. I was partly drawn to surrealism through the sensational
qualities of Dali's work. I admired him for his public bravado, and
find(still) most of his work up until his Christ pictures a joy to look at.
He is - in many ways - a sort of surrealist gateway drug for people who know
little about the movement otherwise. His frenetic style of humor and
outrageousness is not altogether unhealthy given the anal retentive quality
of American culture. My argument with him pertains to specific points, and
Andrea's typical filthy lying is - as is so much of Nik's pale
biographical-analyis - too crude to actually contain any truth at all.
>
> > Similarly I deal with the role of the tarot and the I Ching in
> > surrealism. Again you can check this out. Breton even put a tarot card
> > on the cover of one of his books.
Twenty thousand times we have gone over this. In one of Breton's latest
books (Arcane 17) he declares forcefully in the preface that his interest in
mystical symbology - as so his interest in alchemical symbology - is
archaeological in nature, not mystical. He calls for all phenomenon to be
reinvestigated in the light of the most current scientific understanding.
Andrea's rather dumb-donkey approach to this question ignores facts in the
pursuit of a personal validation of her cloudy mind. Breton has a Tarot on
the cover of one of his books? That means precisely what? Utilizing the
symbols of a belief is no more an acceptance of the tenets of that belief
than any poet's use of "roses" as an image is an acceptance of Bachman's.
> > There are at least points and details in what I write. You assert
> > there is "no substance" or "interest." I just proved you wrong.
And I just reproved that Andrea is as dumb as a blank check.
>
Kristina: a friendly warning. Don't respond to Andrea. She is a
self-professed manipulator of power. If you wrote ten thousand words on
every subject she gets wrong, she would ignore 95% of it and respond to her
distortion of the remaining 5%. Let the little shits that Grand Ass leaves
in her wake (Fascinan, Leo, cythera, and the sloppiest dung of them all Nik)
drone about her empty hive. They have nothing better to do.
I assume you do.
Dale
Dale Houstman
"john adams" <gala...@aol.com> wrote in message
news:38B73511...@aol.com...
> Dale Houstman wrote:
> If you wrote ten thousand words on
> > every subject she gets wrong, she would ignore 95% of it and respond to
her
> > distortion of the remaining 5%.
>
Nik learned it from Andrea, only he adds a little of his spongy
sentimentalism to the mixture: the Reagan to Andrea's Nixon. It was - in
fact - (as Nik revealed to me in several of his absurdly useless mailings) -
Andrea who invited him back to this forum after a blessed absence. They are
a strange pair - he full of sentimental emptiness, and she full of steely
ignorance. But - what the hey - who can account for the love between McMom
and McNik?
DMH
Dale Houstman
> kristina wrote:
>
> >
> > Yeah me too. I got one from Nik yesterday. There ARE better things to
do
> > in life!
> > Kristina.
> >
> > >
> >
>
>
> I presume he's probably emailed most regulars, perhaps to sway the tides
> of opinion or sentiment or join in on his little reindeer games.
>
Yes he's done it to lots of us. Your point about self-delusion is
well-taken: I like to refer to his having an "impermeable" conscience: it is
almost a tautological machine. He willnever realize hoiw absurdly
ineffective he is at everything he does. Due to his clunky notions of
thought, his literature reads like the cheapest of dime novels although
without any of the crude energy. Due to his inability to actually "feel"
anything (because he is afraid to engage his mind, and insists on this
bizarre segregation in the unity of the human consciousness), his most
earnest entreaties for understanding fall like emptied-out puppy skins on
the carpet of his dirt-poor housing.
When I told him about my "epiphany" at thirteen that led to my emancipation
from theism, he missed the entire point: that my intellectualizing about a
vague feeling led to a clarification of that feeling and a new field of both
thought and emotion. He is just plain wrong about intellectualization being
the enemy of feeling. Adult feelings are not mere endrocinal seepages, but a
collaborative action between experience, ideas, and base emotions. The only
escape from biographical manifest destiny is through contemplation of past
experience as it pertains to inchoate desires. Intelligence aids in the
reformation of emotions. Nik cannot allow himself to realize this (I presume
because his imagination is too feeble to take up the chal;lenge), and that
is why his writing ALWAYS sounds pretty much like all the junior high school
bravado texts you've ever read. He does not comprehend the difference
between mere "Fancy" and "Imagination."
And he never will.
DMH
Dale Houstman
Excuse the piggybacking, but I refuse to talk to that anal worm Andrea.
Yet I do think it is instructive to reveal that Andrea (like her pubic puppy
Nik) loves to place herself in positions of power. She will attempt to pass
them off as jokes, but that facade wore off long ago.
Her post (in pieces)
>I remember the last time I brought them
She is the light! Follow the light!
>I thought he needed to be taught a lesson
This is very similar to Nik's constant portrayals of himself in the role of
teacher, or supplier of lessons
>There must have been over a 1,000 posts in response. I watched
>flabbergasted.
Hilarious and hypocritical (besides being a lie). She "brought them over" in
every intention of creating a firestorm, or how else could I have been
"taught" a lesson? Yet here she tries to act as if she was surprised that we
responded to them when she knows that response is what Usenet is ABOUT! This
is just another example of her dumb-donkey double-binding. IF we had not
responded at all, she would now be claiming a victory. But since we DID
respond, she is now claiming a victory. People like her usually get their
asses shot off in real life. Usenet was made for idiots like her: it's safe
to be stupid behind the keyboard. and Andrea didn't "watch" flabbergasted;"
she actively joined in the the side of those whom she now admits she knew
were just flamers. This is of course, typical a-ethical and fascistic
behavior only geared toward one thing: CONTROL. Fascinan (unlike Leo who
just crumples up and sujcks at Andrea's teats like a sick puppy) begs for
that old canard of a "shared enemy" but doesn't seem to be quite bright
enough to realize that the UberBitch for those types is standing right in
front of him while he twiddles his non-opposing thumbs and waits.
>I tried to tell Dale (who I felt had been punished enough)
Not once did I feel "punished" (although it is intriguing to note that
Andrea feels that it was her place to administer this punishment. Most
revealing.), and Andrea is lying again.
and his friends
> that these guys were flamers, that they enjoyed nothing more than
> insults. They wouldn't listen.
This isn't true either: Andrea is NEVER this forthcoming about her insipd
"intrigues." And - although Andrea cannot imagine that her plans don't have
the effect she has predetermined they will have, we all had just as fun with
her handpuppets at they ever did with us. Robert was reduced to bragging
about his college degree and his "normalcy." Very amusing. GMV never made a
dent on even his own consciousness. Andrea: the Gilbert and Sullivan Hitler.
>
> Finally I had to take over the group and bring Nik back. It seemed to
> work.
See Nik? You're a tool... a cold butter knife.
DMH
Brandon J. Freels
like Dali.
First, Dale and Barrett, to my knowledge have never bitched a hoot about
Dali.
Second, I could care less about what Breton thought of Dali.
My dismissal of Dali is simply based on the fact that after his first few
works [which are rarely illustrated] his works becomes consciously
constructed around a Freudian framework and made simple to "look weird".
They were rather a complex and "thought out" maze of symbols, which
contrasts greatly with the free forming automatism of Miro and Masson, or
the collage style juxtapositions of Magritte and Ernst.
Saying Dali was not really a Surrealist is not deleting him to an abyss. I
simple believe he is better suited as a Post-Modernist, or maybe something
more like a Proto-Pre-Post-Modernist. All I know is that he really fucked up
the world of art...
kristina
"Nikolaus Maack" <ac...@FreeNet.Carleton.CA> wrote in message
news:896du6$lf6$1...@freenet9.carleton.ca...
> "barrett john erickson" (bar...@magneticfields.org) writes:
> > the point Kristina is making is that we all have a strange
> > attractor at the core of our living. that strange attractor is
> > either "the surrealist project" or it is not. she has correctly
> > observed, that most people here do not have the surrealist project
> > at the core of their living.
>
> So long as we're handing out "official surrealist" badges, I do not see
> you, Barrett, as having the surrealist project at your core. If you do
> have it, you hide it. You come across very much like an old, crusty
> university professor. You're a historian, and you teach history, but you
> will never BE history.
>
> History is a liquid, and you are so very solid and stationary. A boulder
> in the stream, watching it all rush by. This is a liberated imagination?
> I think not.
>
> must do more than simply spout surrealist dogma.
>
> > living creatively -- paintings, poems, etc., are only artifacts of
> > this process.
>
> If you live creatively, why is it that we never see your creativity here,
> in this newsgroup? Do you shut off your creativity when amongst us? Even
> Dale posts the occasional poem. What do you do, here, besides theorize?
> And shouldn't theory come out with as much passion and vitality as a poem?
Aside from the fact that you miss the point totally Nik (with everything
else you've said here), surrealism is not about "product". What is it with
you? Do you see the point of surrealism as being something that eventuates
in something concrete? Shame on you Mr Anti Surrealism! You constantly
harrass people to "open" their creative selves here, and (laughably) inner
voice, be more personal! you say... and on it goes. However, communication
is what takes place here, and that in itself has the capacity to be surreal,
only if you understand what I'm talking about... but as always I doubt it.
I'm just waiting for your long winded explanation of Mr X and person Z meet
doggy M and then...
>
> You speak surrealism like a weary old hound on the porch, moaning
> arthritically in its dozing summer sleep. You theorize with all the
> passion of an accountant adding up numbers. Limp and drab and lifeless,
> you avoid any real conflict, any real pleasure, any messiness that arises
> in this newsgroup. Afraid of getting dirty? That doesn't seem surrealist
> to me.
You are really ignornat. Again, why does anyone have to "prove" their
surreal life to you? You are missing the point entirely... as you do on
most occassions.
> Show us what's really going on inside of you. Where is your surrealist
> nature? Why do you hide it from us? This is why your words are so
> uninteresting, unchanging. Where is thisimagination of yours of which you
> speak so often?
Again! A perfect example of what I mentioned above.
>
> > the reality is that some people are just unwilling or unable to
> > understand, yet persist in claiming they do.
>
> Are you a possible example? You seem so detached, almost bored with
> surrealism as you speak it. Maybe all these years you've been preaching
> the wrong theories, the wrong ideas, passionlessly doling out scoops of
> gray, molding lard, and calling it "liberty of the imagination".
Barrett is one of the most interesting people I have come across in my life.
Now I DON'T need him to send me his autogrpahy and daily schedule to know
this. Why can't you UNDERSTAND this?! For all your "communicating" you
don't get very far. Sometimes as they say... "less is more". But I'm
wasting my time here, yet again.
Kristina.
kristina
> >
> > > the reality is that some people are just unwilling or unable to
> > > understand, yet persist in claiming they do.
> >
> > Are you a possible example? You seem so detached, almost bored with
> > surrealism as you speak it. Maybe all these years you've been preaching
> > the wrong theories, the wrong ideas, passionlessly doling out scoops of
> > gray, molding lard, and calling it "liberty of the imagination".
> >
>
>
> ideas." These can be examined and tested. Barrett doles out rhetoric,
> words which sound nice and impressive, but have no meaning. And Barrett
> isn't a "possible example." He is a perfect example of dead,
> meaningless dogma which in a lovely twisting of reality spits it's grey,
> rancid (but not bubbling) lard into it's eyes and then sees it
> everywhere except in his self and inscure lads such as Dale who grovel
> before him even though they're his betters. The ritual belief system
> can be seen in the following. Dali is bad despite the fact that he was
> once the hero. Why? Because Breton rejected him. Yet Breton also
> rejected Aragon and hated him far more than Dali. Yet Aragon is good.
> Theory and logic would recognize this as a contradiction. Dale
> (stupid), Brandon (stupider) and Barrett (stupidist) are unable to.
> This is because they live by unexamined dogma.
>
> Similarly they reject Taoism and other mystical philosophies as
> incompatible with surrealism. Yet these were a heavy influence from the
> beginning. Breton went on a bit of ideological cleansing after he found
> the true faith of communism (but it was more a matter of local (Breton
> didn't like any influences that h couldn't control) politics rather than
> ideology,) but as an interview I posted showed he was quite a Taoist at
> the end.
>
> the simple reason that these things are a language for the unconscious,
> they allow one to project hidden thoughts. Nor are other religious
> Buddhist) from the desire to correct Nik (because Dale is a good boy and
> Nik is bad and Dale wants his mommy (who is dead and watching from the
> ozone) to see how he treats bad boys) then Dale might be able to get on
> with his life and all this really cool stuff which is surrealism and
> which quite frankly no one knows what it is exactly, but for sure we
> know it ISN'T all this preaching and pompous "I'm a surrealist and
> you're not. Nah nah nah nah!" pontificated by stupidist (Barrett) and
> echoed by stupider (Brandon) and poor stupid Dale) who we all like even
> though we pity him and try to help him though he doesn't appreciate it.
>
Are you so lacking as well that you take to "analysing" (be it in a most
pathetic and vulgar manner) people on this board. Unlike you and Nik,
people on here DO try and communicate without just focusing on the person.
However, when replying to you AND Nik , it is hard to have an intelligent
conversation becuase you simply do not understand what people are saying.
The passive aggresive qualities of Nik's persona are boring at best, and
your little attempts yourself off here (a pointless excercise) only leaves
me to draw the same conclusions I did about you sometime ago. Vapid,
insipid, lacking self esteem, afraid of other women, and even more afraid of
other men. How's that for an analysis! Pretty damn good! Of course, my
intellignece is far superior to yours so I doubt this will be within your
reach of understanding.
On the note of what you say above -- you ALSO seem to be judging the
"surreal" nature of people on this group by "your" interpretation of what
constitutes "surreal". However, their is no substance or even interest in
what you write. That is the problem -- simply put you lack the more subtle
movements of life, and therefore you will no doubt always remain pissed off
with everyone elses achievements, to console your frigid little mind. Some
things just don't change do they.
Kristina.
kristina
> >
> >
> > On the note of what you say above -- you ALSO seem to be judging the
> > "surreal" nature of people on this group by "your" interpretation of
what
> > constitutes "surreal". However, their is no substance or even interest
in
> > what you write.
>
>
>
> - Breton credited Dali with driving the movement.
> - Breton later fell out with Dali.
> - The 3 stooges think Dali is bad and reject his earlier contributions.
>
> - Breton and Aragon helped found surrealism.
> - Breton later fell out with Aragon.
> - The 3 stooges do not consistently apply their logic. Aragon remains
> good.
Firstly, who do you think you are? "The thought police?" Such little
trivialities to occupy yourself with. I didn't realise that a person is not
allowed to have an opinion of their own, but you clearly see something wrong
with the fact that people have their own views and thoughts. What are you,
a fucking priest?
>
> Similarly I deal with the role of the tarot and the I Ching in
> surrealism. Again you can check this out. Breton even put a tarot card
> on the cover of one of his books.
>
> There are at least points and details in what I write. You assert
> there is "no substance" or "interest." I just proved you wrong.
Andrea, if you are stuck in your own need to prove how much of the history
you know, then go ahead. I really am not that desperate (or that way
inclined). You say "I just proved you wrong" like you have left us some
sort of legacy... this is laughable.
> You
> are a liar. History is substance. To some it is of interest. You
> could argue against my opinions, but like the 3 stooges you wish to wave
> a magic wand and make them dissapear.
As mentioned I have no desire (being the crucial word here) to have a little
"history exam -- test" with you. I suggest there are schools in which you
can do that. MY interests in life are of a much more visceral and sensaul
nature. I prefer to DO and experience and feel, as opposed to arguing the
"what nots" of the past. I DO read for myself, and I enjoy it, but arguing
this old and worn point with you is of no interest to me. I really have no
need to "prove" myself, unlike you.
>
> I can find no detail relating to surrealism in your post. Simply
> assertions about how bad I am. I will be happy to admit I tease Dale
> and friends, that's because they always say nasty things about me. But
> I do raise points and make arguments. They don't. You don't.
Yes, and your points lack interest (for me).
>
> Prove me wrong. Answer the following point.
I think you have Nik mixed up here.... this is his scenario of "prove me
wrong -- challenge me". You must know one thing first. IF I think you are
full of shit and boring(which I most certainly do) any possibility of
engaging conversation for me is non existent. I have no desire to discuss
anything with you of any personal or deeper worth.
>
> If Breton and other histprical surrealists found ideas of value in
> Taoism, how can one claim that they are not legitimate ideas in the
> surrealism? This doesn't mean that one need embrace these notions, but
> on what grounds does one claim that anyone who employs them is by
> definition a non surrealist? Doesn't it become absurd to throw Breton
> out of the movement?
Really!!! Are you so stuck up your own ass that you cannot think for
yourself again? Seems to be alot of this "taking from the text book" and
leaving it be... without thinking further and moving on. Breton is dead for
fucks sake! How the hell do you know what he would be doing now, how do you
know what he would be thinking now? Can you not take from surrealism and
apply it to yourself? No! And you know why? Because you haven't the
faintest idea about what being a surrealist, or surrealism is. Simply put
you are very like Nik in that you read -- and nothing more.
Andrea, bottom line -- Everyone has personal thoughts and beliefs. And no
one is going to find another person who totally agrees with their ideas on
life. This is no different here.
Kristina.
kristina
"Fascinan" <fasc...@aol.com> wrote in message
news:20000225170950...@ng-cs1.aol.com...
> Dale wrote...ah, I mean Kristina wrote:
>
> >movements of life, and therefore you will no doubt always remain pissed
off
> >with everyone elses achievements, to console your frigid little mind.
Some
> >things just don't change do they.
>
>
Your
> incessant prigging speaks volumes of your current state of mind -- relax,
have
> a good trip, bon voyagee.
Yes, I am still here, just for you!!! (laughing my head off actually).
well you may be right that I might be peeved... I find ignorance
intolerable, but more so than that, I find people who lakc free thought
totally vexing and intolerable. I am a nasty nasty girl, right you are!
But, (still laughing) I'm actually quite relaxed, believe it or not. I am
serious here. This does not irk me. I love it. I feel alive... so there
you go!
>
> I can imagine hordes of frightened animals running out of the bush,
pestered
> into madness by the Kristinanator.
Ha ha ha! Good on you Fas, you seem to have a bit of a canine obsession...
all the power to you! Hope you find a good husband in one of those one day.
And you have a lovely holiday too.
Kristina.
kristina
"Brandon J. Freels" <fre...@teleport.com> wrote in message
news:vvDt4.21878$yn3.1...@news1.teleport.com...
> kristina wrote
intelligent
> > conversation becuase you simply do not understand what people are
saying.
>
> they understand. I killfiled Andrea a long time ago. Its best to just let
> her evaporate.
Lacking personality and charm, I guess they have no other option than
stupidity.
Kristina.
>
>
kristina
> kristina wrote:
> >
> > >
> > > Yes there is. There are facts which can be proven. For example:
> > >
> > > - Breton credited Dali with driving the movement.
> > > - Breton later fell out with Dali.
> > > - The 3 stooges think Dali is bad and reject his earlier
contributions.
> > >
> > > - Breton and Aragon helped found surrealism.
> > > - Breton later fell out with Aragon.
> > > - The 3 stooges do not consistently apply their logic. Aragon remains
> > > good.
> >
> > Firstly, who do you think you are? "The thought police?" Such little
> > trivialities to occupy yourself with.
>
> acting as thought police. Many people have been treated rudely for
> expressing an interest in Dali, a number left the group as a
> consequence. It's not me who did this. I simply pointed out the
> contradiction in this approach.
I don't like Dali either. So what?! You are being a hypocrite Andrea.
There is no such thing as anyone that does not have preferneces, the
difference is in how we verbalise them, and who is to say that we must all
be polite and sweet as pie anyway? I refuse to have someone tell me how I
can and cannot communicate with people. In saying that you have every
right, just as Nik, and Fas, and anyone else on this group to ignore,
debate, laugh, point out, etc, anything I say that you want to focus on...
not a problem for me. But acceplt the fact that if I think your an idiot, I
shall simply tell you so, and I may or may not go into lenght as to why. It
all depends on how charitable I AM feeling.
>
>
>
> > I didn't realise that a person is not
> > allowed to have an opinion of their own, but you clearly see something
wrong
> > with the fact that people have their own views and thoughts.
>
> I point out facts such as Dali was considered important in early and
> mid thirties and that his "paranoic critical method" was considered a
> key. If someone doesn't car for Dali that's fine, but it's not me who
> claimed he was unacceptable in surrealism. It was not me who stated
> "Dali is not allowed!"
Why can't someone talk about why Dali is not acceptable to surrealism if
they think that?! You are saying that people should behave in certain ways
and remain oppressed by lack of openess and eitquette and oppressive
traditions should remain. That is not very surreal, not only that, but you
aregue points time and time again, just as that which you are complaining
about. If you want to call me a hypocrite, sure, I probably have been on
some occassion, but at least I lose nothing in admitting that. Like I have
said time and again, I have nothing to prove to you, or anyone else, yet you
remain solid in your narrow minded vision.
>
> So why are you attacking me for the behavior of your friends.
Gosh, you are really pushing this arn't you. I don't attach anyone, it is
not personal, I just express what I THINK. Understand that concept? You do
it all the time, so that point at least should be easy to grasp.
>
>
> > As mentioned I have no desire (being the crucial word here) to have a
little
> > "history exam -- test" with you.
>
> I didn't ask for your desires. I simply responded to your claim that
> there was "no content" in my post. I pointed out the content and now
> you change the subject and bring up your desires. Poor dear.
If this picture brings you comfort I am pleased. All I can hope is that it
does more and you can perhaps grow a real brain!
>
>
>
> > arguing
> > this old and worn point with you is of no interest to me.
>
> Agreed. Arguing a point is of no interest to you. You like to make
> accusations based on faith.
Well at least MY ideas are something I believe in. This is ALL that is
important to me, from that point, I feel good, and can get on with life
feeling rather fulfilled.
>
>
>
> > I really have no
> > need to "prove" myself, unlike you.
>
> You really just said this?! Then why are you so huffy? I think I
> could have a lot of fun with you little girl.
I just said to Fas somewhere, I am not huffy. This is how I communicate,
and I am really quite relaxed. Although I realise you may find that hard to
believe. Not worht going into.
>
>
> > Andrea, bottom line -- Everyone has personal thoughts and beliefs.
And no
> > one is going to find another person who totally agrees with their ideas
on
> > life. This is no different here.
>
> But it was Talysman, Nik and others have been fiercely attacked for
> arguing that taoisim was legitimate. There was *no tolerance* for their
> ideas. I simply asked why Taoism is *unacceptable," I didn't say that
> one must accept it. It wasn't me who said these thoughts are not
> allowed. You are a hypocrite.
I talked about this whole hypocrite thing already. I don't believe in Tao
either, and don't care much for any form of religion or spirituality. So
fucking what! There is life beyond these little banal arguments.
Kristina.
>
>
> >
>
john adams
If you wrote ten thousand words on
> every subject she gets wrong, she would ignore 95% of it and respond to her
> distortion of the remaining 5%.
This sounds strikingly familiar to someone else. Who has the time to
wade through this repetitive B.S. every single day that gets posted
here? Nik spends way too much time with his little childish innane games
and distortions and im convinced he just can't be honest with anyone,
including himself. Yes it's sad, i know. Nik please don't email me
anymore about playing along with you either. Find something better to do
than shower us with your mooshy dung - I don't know how long i can take
it.
john
kristina
Yeah me too. I got one from Nik yesterday. There ARE better things to do
in life!
Kristina.
>
> john
kristina
"Dale Houstman" <dm...@citilink.com> wrote in message
news:4kEt4.1645$%A3.3...@ptah.visi.com...
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > On the note of what you say above -- you ALSO seem to be judging the
> > > > "surreal" nature of people on this group by "your" interpretation of
> > what
> > > > constitutes "surreal". However, their is no substance or even
> interest
> > in
> > > > what you write.
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > - Breton credited Dali with driving the movement.
> > > - Breton later fell out with Dali.
> > > - The 3 stooges think Dali is bad and reject his earlier
contributions.
> > >
> > > - Breton and Aragon helped found surrealism.
> > > - Breton later fell out with Aragon.
> > > - The 3 stooges do not consistently apply their logic. Aragon remains
> > > good.
> >
> > Firstly, who do you think you are? "The thought police?" Such little
> not
> > allowed to have an opinion of their own, but you clearly see something
> wrong
> you,
> > a fucking priest?
>
> bringing that to her attention (which she has little of), is the same as
> bringing anything up to her genetic offal Nik.
>
> 1. Breton does indeed give Dail some credit for publicizing the surrealist
> movement, but his falling out with him is very real, and based on specific
> items, mainly fascism and capitalist buffoonery and theism.
> 2. Who doesn't know that Breton fell out with Aragon? And why is it
> important to reiterate the obvious?
> 3. I don't know about Brandon (the third Stooge) but Barrett and I have
> both publicly and privately discussed the validity of Dali's early works.
I
> went into that much vaunted (by Nik) personal mode on this very point
> several times. I was partly drawn to surrealism through the sensational
> qualities of Dali's work. I admired him for his public bravado, and
> find(still) most of his work up until his Christ pictures a joy to look
at.
> He is - in many ways - a sort of surrealist gateway drug for people who
know
> little about the movement otherwise. His frenetic style of humor and
> outrageousness is not altogether unhealthy given the anal retentive
quality
> of American culture. My argument with him pertains to specific points, and
> Andrea's typical filthy lying is - as is so much of Nik's pale
> biographical-analyis - too crude to actually contain any truth at all.
>
> >
> > > surrealism. Again you can check this out. Breton even put a tarot
card
> > > on the cover of one of his books.
>
> books (Arcane 17) he declares forcefully in the preface that his interest
in
> mystical symbology - as so his interest in alchemical symbology - is
> archaeological in nature, not mystical. He calls for all phenomenon to be
> reinvestigated in the light of the most current scientific understanding.
> Andrea's rather dumb-donkey approach to this question ignores facts in the
> pursuit of a personal validation of her cloudy mind. Breton has a Tarot on
> the cover of one of his books? That means precisely what? Utilizing the
> symbols of a belief is no more an acceptance of the tenets of that belief
> than any poet's use of "roses" as an image is an acceptance of Bachman's.
>
> > > there is "no substance" or "interest." I just proved you wrong.
>
> >
> Kristina: a friendly warning. Don't respond to Andrea. She is a
> every subject she gets wrong, she would ignore 95% of it and respond to
her
> in her wake (Fascinan, Leo, cythera, and the sloppiest dung of them all
Nik)
> drone about her empty hive. They have nothing better to do.
>
> I assume you do.
Yes, you're right, I do, but every so often I like to engage the rotting
eels I suppose. Just like all of us. But we both know that the desire to
maintain the absurdity of it all does decrease, and in seeing that it is
pretty much the same old, same old... we move on.
Kristina.
>
> Dale
>
>
>
john adams
>
> Yeah me too. I got one from Nik yesterday. There ARE better things to do
> in life!
> Kristina.
>
> >
>
I presume he's probably emailed most regulars, perhaps to sway the tides
of opinion or sentiment or join in on his little reindeer games.
john
kristina
Sadly and predictably, I think you're right John.
Kristina.
>
> john
kristina
>
> "john adams" <gala...@aol.com> wrote in message
> news:38B742C4...@aol.com...
> > kristina wrote:
> >
> > >
> > > Yeah me too. I got one from Nik yesterday. There ARE better things
to
> do
> > > in life!
> > > Kristina.
> > >
> > > >
> > >
> >
> >
> > I presume he's probably emailed most regulars, perhaps to sway the tides
> > of opinion or sentiment or join in on his little reindeer games.
> >
Bravo! You describe the emotional aspect of who we are so well, and the
relationship and complexity of it concisely.
Why is it so hard then for some to understand this basic of truths...
(being rhetorical there).
Thank you Dale, you little ehat Handbag!
Kristina.
>
> DMH
>
>
kristina
> Kristina
>
> Excuse the piggybacking, but I refuse to talk to that anal worm Andrea.
>
> Yet I do think it is instructive to reveal that Andrea (like her pubic
puppy
> Nik) loves to place herself in positions of power. She will attempt to
pass
> them off as jokes, but that facade wore off long ago.
Power exchanges are really rather sensational in life -- but in order for it
to be fulfilling it is important to choose who one invites in, so to speak.
As you say, Andrea is an anal worm! and I can't find anything remotely
satisfying or even enticing about communicating with that.
Seriously the power exchange of ideas and energy in communication is crucial
if desire is to remain in speaking with another human being. When this is
lacking (and regarding Nik, Andrea, and quite a few others...too many to
mention) the whole joy of communication is severly compromised and the love
of sharing extinguished completely.
Anyway my dear little Ehat, the time has come for me to get off this thing
and get myself organised for the big trip.
Spamaliciously,
Kristina.
!
| If Breton and other histprical surrealists found ideas of value in
| Taoism, how can one claim that they are not legitimate ideas in the
| surrealism? This doesn't mean that one need embrace these notions, but
| on what grounds does one claim that anyone who employs them is by
| definition a non surrealist?
dogs fighting in a pit
| Doesn't it become absurd to throw Breton out of the movement?
mudfights fake surrealism
--
mailto:naga...@luckymojo.com ; http://www.luckymojo.com/nagasiva.html
mailto:bobo...@satanservice.org ; http://www.satanservice.org/
emailed replies may be posted; cc replies if response desired
Leo Sgouros
"!" <i...@no.self> wrote in message news:897t6a$r...@bolt.sonic.net...
fights align
among the convenient
but find the convenient not surreal
lawrence day
cythera wrote:
> In article <897t6a$r...@bolt.sonic.net>,
> sp...@luckymojo.com wrote:
> > Andrea "Net Goddess" Chen <fallin...@earthlink.net>:
> > | If Breton and other historical surrealists found ideas of value in
> > | Taoism, how can one claim that they are not legitimate ideas in the
> > | surrealism? This doesn't mean that one need embrace these notions,
> but
> > | on what grounds does one claim that anyone who employs them is by
> > | definition a non surrealist?
Absurd political situations [like post-Clemenceau France, or Europe in
general then] create the ground where surrealism flourishes. Surrealists
discover Chuang Tzu/Zhuangzi and love him.
He writes, eg, : "Nothing under heaven is larger than a strand of gossamer,
nor smaller than Mount T'ai" and they feel at home.
Early Ch'an [later Zen] picks up the theme, eg, from the Pao-ching San-mei:
"While the wooden man is singing,
The stone maiden starts to dance.
This cannot be reached by our consciousness.
How can you give a thought to this?"
(--Chang Chung Yuan trans)
"Vous matelots, revez, en faisent vos cents pas.."
--Tristan Corbiere
>
> >
> > dogs fighting in a pit
>
> With Andrea Chen starring as chief dog, "GOD"
> >
> > | Doesn't it become absurd to throw Breton out of the movement?
> >
> > mudfights fake surrealism
>
> Fuqqin A!!!
>
> cythera
>
> > --
> > mailto:naga...@luckymojo.com ; http://www.luckymojo.com/nagasiva.html
> > mailto:bobo...@satanservice.org ; http://www.satanservice.org/
> > emailed replies may be posted; cc replies if response desired
> >
>
> Sent via Deja.com http://www.deja.com/
> Before you buy.