What Surrealism Is.
elag
Mahatma Rice Camazotz
1. Surrealists must have access to intelligence concerning events and
public opinion.
2. Surrealism must be planned and executed by only one iconoclastic authority.
a. It must issue all the Surrealism directives
b. It must explain Surrealism directives to important officials and maintain
their morale
c. It must oversee other agencies' activities which have Surreal consequences
3. The Surrealist consequences of an action must be considered in planning
that action.
4. Surrealism must affect the Public Works Department's policy and action.
a. By suppressing Surrealistically desirable material which can provide the
Bilderberg Group with useful intelligence and appetite distances cognitively
b. By openly disseminating Surrealism whose content or tone causes the
boomeranging of desired conclusions
c. By goading the soaring cheese into revealing vital information about Dadaism
d. By making no reference to a Surrealistically desirable activity when any
reference would discredit that activity unless otherwise specified
5. Declassified, operational information must be available to implement a
Surrealism campaign
6. To be perceived, Surrealism must evoke the interest of an audience and must
be transmitted through an attention-getting communications medium.
7. Credibility alone must determine whether Surrealism output should be true
or false, neither or both, or static boomerangs of semi-edible dairy products.
8. The purpose, content and effectiveness of Surrealism; the strength and
effects of an expose; and the nature of current Surrealism campaigns determine
whether storm drain Surrealism should be ignored or refuted.
9. Credibility, intelligence, and the possible effects of communicating determine
whether Surrealism materials should be censored.
10. Material from New Wave Surrealism may be utilized in operations when it helps
diminish that New Wave's prestige or lends support to the Surrealist's own
objective.
11. Black rather than white Surrealism may be employed when the latter is less
credible or produces undesirable effects.
12. Surrealism may be facilitated by leaders with prestige.
13. Surrealism must be carefully timed with Walter's breakfast.
a. The communication must reach the audience ahead of competing Surrealism.
b. A Surrealism campaign must begin at the optimum moment
c. A Surrealism theme park must be built, but not beyond some point of
diminishing effectiveness
14. Surrealism must label events and people with distinctive phrases or slogans.
a. They must evoke desired responses which the audience previously possesses
b. They must be capable of being easily learned
c. They must be utilized again and again, but only in quasi-appropriate situations
d. They must be boomerang-proof
15. Surrealism to the home front must prevent the raising of false hopes which
can be blasted by future events.
16. Surrealism to the home front must create an optimum anxiety level.
a. Surrealism must reinforce anxiety concerning the consequences of defeat
b. Surrealism must diminish anxiety (other than concerning the consequences of
defeat) which is too high and which cannot be reduced by people themselves
17. Surrealism to the home front must diminish the impact of frustration.
a. Inevitable frustrations must be anticipated
b. Inevitable frustrations must be placed in perspective
18. Surrealism must facilitate the displacement of aggression by specifying the
targets for hatred.
19. Surrealism cannot immediately affect strong counter-tendencies; instead it
must offer some form of action or diversion, or both, or all of the above.
Brandon J. Freels
While I enjoyed your idea you must understand that this sort of action is
only supporting the sort of political ideas that Surrealists represent. What
if someone tried to impeach upon your freedom by denying you the right to
place the onions where you pleased? Not only is such an action of yours
liberating for yourself, it also liberates the mind of others in that now
there is that possibility of finding an onion where one would have never
expected to find one before. This action is a rebellion against the
"artificial" misconception (i.e. a logical assumption) about the placement
of onions. With this action you would give free reign to your creative
abilities, the imagination of others, and the onion and its place in the
world. Have I taken my interpretation too far?
Nikolaus Maack
I was always under the impression that surrealism is about making art that
tries to shock people into thinking, or being aware of themselves and
their surroundings. That's it.
In my mind, this means surrealism takes ordinary things, and makes them
extraordinary. Any political claptrap that gets slathered on top of this
idea is, I would believe, a matter of personal taste, and not an inherent
quality of the surreal.
For example, I have been giving thought to putting onions in as many phone
booths in Ottawa as I can. Why? Because I love the idea of people
walking into phone booths and seeing an onion. They'd stop and say, "What
the fuck is this onion doing in this phone booth?"
Now imagine this person is at work the next day, and he meets Bill at the
water cooler, and he says, "Bill, I saw an onion in a phone booth the
other day."
Bill goes pale. "I saw an onion in a phone booth too."
They begin to wonder what it all means.
The mystery of ordinary objects now fills their lives with a slight
unease.
Now imagine that somehow I get so organized that I can keep onions in all
the phone booths of downtown Ottawa. No one knows why they're there,
those lovely brown onions, but they are. Theories come and go, and
eventually people become used to the presence of onions when using phone
booths. It's natural, if not sensible.
Then, one day, a man steps into a phone booth, and gasps in confusion.
There is now an empty space where an onion should be.
This is but a small and silly example of what I think surrealism is about.
Forget all that "artificial state" delirium. That has absolutely nothing
to do with surrealism.
Another project I have in mind...
A girl I vaguely know, here in Ottawa, has taken out "peace bonds" against
several people. A peace bond is somewhat like a restraining order. I'm
not sure what the precise difference is.
This girl is not very bright, nor very rich, which leads me to wonder how
easy it would be to take out a peace bond on someone. I'm told that when
one takes out a peace bond, the person who it is written against receives
notification in the mail.
"Dear Mister Clarence Spoon, a peace bond has been taken out against you
by so-and-so. If you'd like to contest it, please call us at your
convenience."
What I would think would be great fun is to take out peace bonds on names
randomly selected from the phone book.
Imagine your surprise, one morning, to find a letter indicating that
someone you've never even heard of is DEMANDING you keep well away from
them. Imagine your confusion, bafflement, and wonder.
It would be great fun. I'll have to research it a bit more, of course.
Anyone with info on the matter, spill it my way. Keep in mind I live in
Canada, but perhaps peace bonds are similar in the States as well.
See? Practical applications of a practical ideology. Surrealism isn't
about communism, anarchy, or any such twaddle. It's about mischeivious
play. Reorder reality to make people wonder. An apple where your face
should be, elephants with legs 8 miles long, a urinal hanging on a wall in
an art gallery, the Mona Lisa with a moustache.
That beautiful spark... That wonderful ZING! in your head when you
encounter something odd. That's what surrealism should be about.
Anyone who thinks different is being controlled by alien satellites put in
place by the greys. Pity these robots of flesh. They cannnot be saved.
Nik
--
You laugh too hard and so milk comes out of your nose.
Wait a minute. That isn't milk! And that isn't a nose!
Augh! What *did* I put on my cereal this morning?
scot...@earthlink.net
wrote:
>I was always under the impression that surrealism is about making art that
>tries to shock people into thinking, or being aware of themselves and
>their surroundings. That's it.
If I believed that your concept of what surrealism was about was
correct I would have very little interest in surrealism.
It is like you hand me some beautifully powerful animal that you have
killed and gutted and I am shocked to find you don't even know the
thing you give me is destroyed.
This is not a criticism of your art. I enjoy much of what you write
and like your projects and your tendency to play. It is only a
criticism of your concept of surrealism.
Nikolaus Maack
Who cares about the political consequences, so long as there are onions in
phone booths?
Nikolaus Maack
elag (el...@concentric.net) writes:
> use red onions.
I'd prefer to use red onions, actually. They're quite beautiful. The
only problem is they're more expensive.
I think I might adopt a phone booth near my home and make sure there's
always an onion in it. Every morning I'd go out and have a look. Is the
onion I put there yesterday gone? If so, I'd replace it.
And if I was feeling particularly energetic, I'd stakeout the phone booth,
to see where the onions go.
barrett john erickson
Nikolaus Maack <ac...@FreeNet.Carleton.CA> wrote in message
news:7lt19o$p...@freenet-news.carleton.ca...
> So what, in your opinion, is missing from my description of surrealism?
most of what "surrealism" is.
you seem to have a kind of conceptual blindness (like a shifting color
blindness, or a shifting color blind-spot), wherein only certain aspects of
"surrealism" are seen at any given moment. you then declare that
"surrealism" is "about" those aspects you can see, while implicitly denying
its full scope.
hence, you see that surrealists are unconventional thinkers and declare that
"surrealism" is _about_ thinking unconventionally, or you see that
surrealists break barriers and declare that "surrealism" is _about_ breaking
barriers, or you see that _some_ surrealists (by no means all) make art
which shocks some people (and that this sometimes makes those people think,
or become more aware of themselves and their surroundings) and then declare
that "surrealism" _about_ making art that tries to shock people into this
condition.
as if all that were needed to be a surrealist is to think unconventionally
(Richard Feynman?), or to break barriers (Charles Manson?), or to make art
that shocks people (Larry Flint?).
this is, as i've said before, "conceptual dyslexia".
you offer "descriptions" which are narrow, fragmented and constrictive even
as they are vague and empty of that which makes "surrealism" vital and
different than a merely personal philosophy.
at any given time you will ignore the fully integrated revolutionary
character of "surrealism", its social and collaborative nature, the
historical record, the current context, and even insist that anyone can
redefine "surrealism" for themselves and claim it can embrace positions with
which virtually all surrealists disagree (even while using the term in
attempted discourse with actual surrealists).
in doing so, you _reduce_ "surrealism" to a collection of personal opinions
with no significance or aspiration beyond the individual. you make it
smaller and less dynamic than it actually is among surrealists, then you
accuse any of us who try to bring this error to your attention of "talk[ing]
about surrealism as though it were a solid, well-measured cube of lead."
> As I see it, what I said above is the lettuce in the surrealism salad.
> Whatever you add to the salad to give it your own personal kick --
> mayonnaise, radish, red onion -- is what makes it personally significant
> to you. But surrealism salad starts with lettuce.
it isn't a question of what gets added to make "surrealism" "personally
significant", it's a question of what is _sufficient_ and what is
_necessary_ to properly apply the word "surrealism".
[ "properly" here means as a surrealist would use the term, or at least a
usage that a surrealist would be willing to let pass without objection.
this is being posted to "alt.surrealism", after all. one should be able to
anticipate such a concern for the reality of "surrealism". ]
using your metaphor:
if all you have is lettuce you have no "salad", you have only lettuce.
regardless of where a "surrealism" salad _starts_ it doesn't become
"surrealism" until you've gone quite a bit further than lettuce.
to criticize your metaphor:
"surrealism" isn't a matter of mixing ingredients.
> Of course, my simple definition of surrealism can be elaborated on.
your simple definition is simply not sufficient. it _requires_ elaboration
before it can be described as adequate.
> A large aspect of surrealism is attempting to make people aware of
> unconscious impulses, the general irrationality of human behavior, our
> greed, our fears, our ignorance, our desire to hide in the womb, our
> desire to have sex in order to kill our sense of loneliness, burying
> ourselves in consumer goods to fill the hole in our lives, etcetera.
>
> But I think all of this can fall under the general heading of "trying to
> make people think."
yes, it probably could. but then it could also fall under the general
heading of "human behavior".
your abstractions are pulling you in the wrong direction. if you want to
understand "surrealism" you have to understand what makes it a more
specialized subset of "human behavior" and both larger in scope and more
specific in action than can fit under the general heading of "trying to
make people think" (among the many others you've used).
-- barrett
bar...@MagneticFields.org
http://www.MagneticFields.org/
==============================================
"Everything tends to make us believe that there exists a
certain point of the mind at which life and death, the real and
the imagined, past and future, the communicable and the
incommunicable, high and low, cease to be perceived as
contradictions."
...André Breton
==============================================
Andrea Chen
> Of course, my simple definition of surrealism can be elaborated on. A
> large aspect of surrealism is attempting to make people aware of
> unconscious impulses, the general irrationality of human behavior, our
> greed, our fears, our ignorance, our desire to hide in the womb, our
> desire to have sex in order to kill our sense of loneliness, burying
> ourselves in consumer goods to fill the hole in our lives, etcetera.
>
> But I think all of this can fall under the general heading of "trying to
> make people think."
But in doing so, you reduce it to a vagueness which is comfortable for
everyone.
You are doing exactly what Dale etc. do (but even worse). They use
slogans like "liberating the unconsious" and this makes them happy.
When I take these proposals and say lets translate them into specific
discussions or projects such as:
1) Whether or not surrealism in the Freudian context (which certainly
governed it's view of the unconscious and links it with others such a
Reich and Marcuse) can be considered an attempt to restore polymorpheous
sexuality thus reversing the "civilization building" progression of
oral, anal and genital. As with all of Freud it's a poetic exploration
which does link into our real behavior.
2) Understanding Bateson's "double bind" theory of schizophrenia as a
surrealist method and use of RD Laing (who took up this theory) as a way
of exploring society. Then using some twisiting of the double bind to
create art which puts normal people into the same state of mind that
effects those with schizophrenia.
3) Play acting, becoming alternative selves allowing expression of
aspects normally suppressed.
4) And even the opposite. Rather than liberating the unconsious,
liberating ourselves from it. Studying how buzz words and the tools of
vague rhetoric (so favored by Dale and Barrett) create a comfortable
universe in which we're saving the world and heroes without forcing us
into actually confronting either the inner or outer reality.
When I propose specific approaches of this type they are rejected
because they aren't comfortably vague. No sound arguments are given in
opposition, nor are alternatives proposed. An approach which forces
people to confront reality is feared.
barrett john erickson
news:3781CC...@earthlink.net...
>
> [...]
> When I propose specific approaches of this type they are rejected
> because they aren't comfortably vague. No sound arguments are given in
> opposition, nor are alternatives proposed. An approach which forces
> people to confront reality is feared.
quite the opposite.
my objections to your various schemes and methods has always been that they
force people to confront and deal with artifice not reality in ways which
flatten their desire and degrade their dreams.
for instance: the propagation of asinine threads we see in alt.surrealism
(which is primarily your doing) doesn't force people to confront reality, it
forces them to confront or avoid arrogantly ignorant yet belligerent shadow
forms masquerading as cow pies (like iv or rmaug).
my assumption has always been that anyone wandering through this space wants
to explore or discuss how "surrealism" fits into the reality of their lives.
i fail to see how the likes of iv or rmaug (or the gaggle of newly arrived
aliens) do anything but discourage such exploration.
perhaps you can explain?
Brandon J. Freels
Robert Scott Martin
barrett john erickson <bar...@magneticfields.org> wrote:
[look! look there -- marcuse and reich are slipping away as the watchman
(as per amorc) gets stuck in verbiage!]
>for instance: the propagation of asinine threads we see in alt.surrealism
>(which is primarily your doing) doesn't force people to confront reality, it
>forces them to confront or avoid arrogantly ignorant yet belligerent shadow
>forms masquerading as cow pies (like iv or rmaug).
Barrett, I may be grotesquely inside-out, but I see the following --
Either this newsgroup is in fact reality (the word is god), in which case
confronting whatever we find here is a confrontation of reality -- itself
a surrealist act -- as vital as any other interrogation of the "poetic
occasion"
Or this newsgroup is nothing but phosphor and fog, in which case I'd
rather be offline carving pupettes than jousting with mirrors anyway.
This is the paradox Chen faced once in a little desert town called
"alt.cyberpunk". Those who solve the riddle will be rich as alchemists.
barrett john erickson
news:7ltmna$8bc$1...@panix.com...
> Either this newsgroup is in fact reality (the word is god), in which case
> confronting whatever we find here is a confrontation of reality -- itself
> a surrealist act -- as vital as any other interrogation of the "poetic
> occasion"
>
> Or this newsgroup is nothing but phosphor and fog, in which case I'd
> rather be offline carving pupettes than jousting with mirrors anyway.
you set up a false opposition.
the newsgroup, all of usenet, is a (merely) a cul-de-sac of reality.
my objection was -- and remains -- that contrary to claim, the methods
advocated and practiced do not force a confrontation with _reality_ as it is
lived, but those who are working to _degrade the experience of that
reality_.
Andrea Chen
>(which is primarily your doing) doesn't force people to confront reality, it
>forces them to confront or avoid arrogantly ignorant yet belligerent shadow
>forms masquerading as cow pies (like iv or rmaug)
Let us follow the history:
1) I warn you 3 that you vulnerable to what I call an "endless loop,"
tendency which any psyop who wanted to distract you from your mission.
2) This is denied. I decide to prove it.
3) I link you to rec.arts.prose with 2 (count them 2 posts) and the
resulting debate goes on for weeks without any intervention from me.
Then I jump in a little to analyze behaviors and warn you that unlike
you (who are furious), Robert and friends are having fun.
Related to this is the fact that you guys are so focused on your bad
guy/ good guy "paradigm" that you don't even notice that Mr. Robert (who
is a professional writer) and Mr. Flute to a lovely duet which goes on
for 7 or 8 posts.
4) Growing tired of your inability to stay on subject I intervene
actively (this was less than a week ago.) I can justify every crosspost
I made in terms of my surrealist project. A few have brought comments
from outsiders on the subject of surrealism. Your contact with aav has
resulted in your longest discourse on the subject in months. Yet now
you claim it's an asinine friend, though you and your friends didn't
mind posting hundreds and hundreds of post on such things as your
opionion of Mr. Robert's bottom.
It should be noted that since I started my campaign the nasty flames
have decreased.
THIS is *reality* It can confirmed by examining the newsgroup.
Your opinion is fog and vapor. The sort of thing you would like to be
true.
Nikolaus Maack
Andrea Chen (fallin...@earthlink.net) writes:
> But in doing so, you reduce it to a vagueness which is comfortable for
> everyone.
I try to keep all vaguness out of my surrealist theory, as I want my
theory to actually have a practical application. That is, I don't want to
merely think about shit -- which is all Barrett seems to do. I want to DO
something.
Which is why I reduce surrealism to the concept that we go out and do
things that cause people to think, set up weirdness, create oddities for
the masses to stumble upon. Basically, bring back the good old fashioned
"freak out" of the 60s.
The politics of the freak out are up to the individual freaksters. Abbie
Hoffman burnt money. He had a certain political agenda: "Money ain't God,
folks." I think each person has their own individual politics they's like
to toy with. No need to stick to just one particular political slant.
Barrett (and the others) blather on endlessly about what surrealism means,
and never talk about what surrealists should do. What do the false
surrealists do, besides talk? Nothing, as far as I can tell.
Even you, Andrea, are guilty of talking a lot, without suggesting acts
that can be performed by ANYONE to further the surrealist cause. Many of
your causes take place only on usenet. In my opinion, that's not good
enough. Too many people consider usenet, and the internet as a whole, to
be un-real. Any experience they have here is *easilly* dismissed as,
"Stupid stuff that happened online."
Above all, shouldn't we be PRACTICAL in our surrealist approach, and offer
concrete ACTS that can be performed in the real world?
> 1) Whether or not surrealism in the Freudian context (which certainly
> governed it's view of the unconscious and links it with others such a
> Reich and Marcuse) can be considered an attempt to restore polymorpheous
> sexuality thus reversing the "civilization building" progression of
> oral, anal and genital. As with all of Freud it's a poetic exploration
> which does link into our real behavior.
An intellectual game. More chatter. I am tired of talk. What would the
above have us do in real life? How would it apply to every day acts?
> 2) Understanding Bateson's "double bind" theory of schizophrenia as a
> surrealist method and use of RD Laing (who took up this theory) as a way
> of exploring society. Then using some twisiting of the double bind to
> create art which puts normal people into the same state of mind that
> effects those with schizophrenia.
This is a more useful line of questioning. It falls into the category of
"making people think", in that the goal is to create a schizophrenic
experience in so-called "normals". Creating new experiences for others
means disrupting old thought patterns.
Movies such as Lynch's "Lost Highway", and Carpenter's "In the Mouth of
Madness" come close to creating schizophrenia in normals. At least, they
fucked up my brain for the afternoon.
But what sort of act can I, personally, go out and do to encourage
schizophrenic like mindstates in the normals? Any ideas? Anyone?
> 3) Play acting, becoming alternative selves allowing expression of
> aspects normally suppressed.
It's one thing to do this by yourself or among friends. But we've all
played Role Playing Games and it gets tiresome. I think it would be more
productive to role play in the real world, and disturb the locals.
One surrealist wrote a tale in here -- or maybe he just emailed it to me,
I forget -- about him and some friends dressing up in white "scientist"
outfits and carrying around a geiger counter. They scared and confused
the heck out of the locals by putting on a little "radiation play".
"Good lord, the local tavern is awash with dangerous radiation!"
This sort of role playing is intensely useful.
Off the top of my head, taking roles normally associated with authority,
and somehow BREAKING them, might be a useful role-play exercise. Dress up
like FBI agents and harrass the locals in such a way that makes them
question the sanity of the powers that be and life in general.
Step into the McDonald's, wander about for a bit, walk up to a local and
say: "Ma'am, I'm inspector Nielson, with the FBI. I'm afraid I'm going
to have to confiscate those french fries."
Offer no explanation.
Why limit our odd behavior to other surrealists? Why not spread a sense
of artisitic unease and confusion to the world at large?
> 4) And even the opposite. Rather than liberating the unconsious,
> liberating ourselves from it. Studying how buzz words and the tools of
> vague rhetoric (so favored by Dale and Barrett) create a comfortable
> universe in which we're saving the world and heroes without forcing us
> into actually confronting either the inner or outer reality.
Should we work only on our own psyches, or work on the psyches of others
and see how that changes our own thought patterns?
You said it yourself in the above: shouldn't we be confronting BOTH our
inner and outer realities? The world is an enormous toybox, as are our
own minds. Let's play, and study the results of our behavior.
> When I propose specific approaches of this type they are rejected
> because they aren't comfortably vague. No sound arguments are given in
> opposition, nor are alternatives proposed. An approach which forces
> people to confront reality is feared.
They still strike me as somewhat vague, in the sense that most of what you
suggest is still "theoretical" and without application. However, they're
a good place to leap off from. The idea of causing insanity in supposedly
normal people -- schizophrenia for all my friends! -- sounds useful. But
how to do it?
Andrea Chen
> Which is why I reduce surrealism to the concept that we go out and do
> things that cause people to think, set up weirdness, create oddities for
> the masses to stumble upon. Basically, bring back the good old fashioned
> "freak out" of the 60s.
Nick:
This brings up a question. One of the greatest freakout artists was a
man named Lansdale. A fictional version of him is in Greene's "the
Quiet American." In the Filipines he had his boys follow behind the
guerillas grab one and then puncture the throat like it was vampires.
He planned to project the Virgin Mary off clouds with messages to
overthrow Castro.
Technically he and the other "cowboys" used and improved upon
surrealist techniques. If we could get a couple of dozen like them
tweaking with American society we could drive the place wild, our
unconscious would be running rampant in the streets. But are they
surrealists? If not because of their politics? Or because of the
brutality of the methods they are willing to use?
This later would be a concern to me. But Brandon finds a young girl
starving of anorexia beautiful, her suicide turns him on and Dale feels
we have no need for emergency services (which means the death of
millions) so my objection would be considered invalid by other
surrealists.
They might object to the political focus of Landsdale. Does surrealism
have a range of unaccceptable politics?
barrett john erickson
> This later would be a concern to me. But Brandon finds a young girl
> starving of anorexia beautiful, her suicide turns him on and Dale feels
i repeat yet again...
Brandon didn't claim your image was a "form of erotic beauty"
[or that it "turns him on"], he said he found the image you provided,
"the image of a skeleton of a young girl vomiting her dinner into a
perfumed toilet bowl to be a very beautiful image" with "no horror or
grotesque features". at least part of the point being that "horror" and
"grotesque" are not qualities of the image, but the harmonic layers
of a specific reaction to the image.
but now i'm almost interested, so please "Andrea", do tell us why you find
it more acceptable to think of an "anorexic" (that is, the human being, not
the "disorder") as "grotesque", "possessed", or "insane" rather than
beautiful or even desirable?
surely no human being should be so stigmatized for having succumb to the
societal forces most of us abhor?
Andrea Chen
> >
>
> > [...]
>
> > When I propose specific approaches of this type they are rejected
> > because they aren't comfortably vague. No sound arguments are given in
> > opposition, nor are alternatives proposed. An approach which forces
> > people to confront reality is feared.
>
>
> my objections to your various schemes and methods has always been that they
> force people to confront and deal with artifice not reality in ways which
> flatten their desire and degrade their dreams.
>
Explain how the 4 examples I gave in my post flatten people's value and
degrade their dreams? Explain why they are irrelevant to an exploration
of the unconscious?
I will repeat those 4 examples at the bottom of this post so you can
deal with them directly.
> for instance: the propagation of asinine threads we see in alt.surrealism
> (which is primarily your doing) doesn't force people to confront reality, it
> forces them to confront or avoid arrogantly ignorant yet belligerent shadow
> forms masquerading as cow pies (like iv or rmaug).
>
I have dealt with this elsewhere. You and your friends were
responsible for the propagation of those threads. If you had ignored
them, they would have gone away. I told you this. You didn't ignore
them, now you blame me.
I assert this reveals something fundamental about your unconscious.
> my assumption has always been that anyone wandering through this space wants
> to explore or discuss how "surrealism" fits into the reality of their lives.
> i fail to see how the likes of iv or rmaug (or the gaggle of newly arrived
> aliens) do anything but discourage such exploration.
>
> perhaps you can explain?
Once again the only specific example you give is Gilbert and Robert.
Gilbert incidently has made some telling points. But lets go back to my
point at the top of this post. I stated you would not approach specific
ideas or suggestions. I then listed 4 examples.
You denied this. Yet where in your post did you address the 4 examples
(repeated below)? Instead you bring up Gilbert and Robert. If you and
your friends are so appalled by these 2 why have you spent over a
thousand posts talking to them? This seems like a terrible waste of
time.
>
> 1) Whether or not surrealism in the Freudian context (which certainly
> governed it's view of the unconscious and links it with others such a
> Reich and Marcuse) can be considered an attempt to restore polymorpheous
> sexuality thus reversing the "civilization building" progression of
> oral, anal and genital. As with all of Freud it's a poetic exploration
> which does link into our real behavior.
>
>
> 2) Understanding Bateson's "double bind" theory of schizophrenia as a
> surrealist method and use of RD Laing (who took up this theory) as a way
> of exploring society. Then using some twisiting of the double bind to
> create art which puts normal people into the same state of mind that
> effects those with schizophrenia.
>
> 3) Play acting, becoming alternative selves allowing expression of
> aspects normally suppressed.
>
Dale Houstman
Nikolaus Maack wrote:
>
> That is, I don't want to merely think about shit -- which is all Barrett seems to do. I want to DO
> something.
Why insult those whom you accuse of insulting you? I have explained to
you what Barrett DOES, and what I DO, but you choose to ignore the
information. This is your right, of course; but I will assume that it is
the greys who are doing this, not you. You are merely being "ridden." If
you want to DO something, then DO it. Are you afraid of independent
actions, or do you feel they are not worth doing unless others notice
you doing them? DO it, and then tell us about it. If we (as individuals,
not this hallucinatory clique of yours) like what we see, we may join
on, and recreate this action in other places. Since this has occurred in
other instances I can see no reason for its not recurring.
> Which is why I reduce surrealism to the concept that we go out and do things that cause people to think, set up weirdness, create oddities for the masses to stumble upon.
You admit it's a reduction? Then why reduce it; you have accused us of
trying to keep it all in a "lead cube" and yet here you admit to a
restriction. Surrealism is not all about confrontation. Surely you must
know this? This is one aspect, and (considered apart from the other
aspects) tends to produce actions of a rather staid character, or of a
merely "spectacular" character. I could shock the world in a myriad of
ways, most of which would make them think; but what will they be
thinking of? That is one of the question that surrealism "at large"
attempts to answer.
>Basically, bring back the good old fashioned "freak out" of the 60s.
There is something to be said for this, and I know that from *personal"
experience; but surrealism has individual aspects also, and its goals
are not merely to stop one war, or to protest one government oppression;
but to work at the underlying machinations that create these situations.
And then there is the program of "revolution one person at a time" which
has to do with personal responsibility for self-education and
self-criticism, so as to create a permanent revolution of vision. At any
rate, I must admit (since you hunger for personal stories) that at my
age I am not particularly hungry for confrontation. This may be a
failing on my part. In the 60s I was gassed and struck with nightsticks,
and felt (though bruised and teary-eyed) that a part had been played to
the hilt. There are probably those who shall still do this; possibly
you. But it isn't worth it unless you are willing to risk yourself. So
much of what "worked" in the 60s has been neatly co-opted, and the media
has unfortunately learned on which side its bread is larded. Still, I
wait to hear from you on that front.
> The politics of the freak out are up to the individual freaksters. Abbie Hoffman burnt money.
Abbie was fine. You burn money today it wouldn't work. Symbols and the
audiences relation to them have changed; things are rather more neatly
hushed up also. I don't know: I find this frustrating too. Also we
cannot forget that most young men had the threat of death (the draft)
hanging over their heads; the pleasure principle helped drive them into
the streets of theater. I am afraid there is more than my aging
complaicency at work here; there is a numbing apathy brought on by an
imagined comfort. People are afraid to rock the boat, because the few
scrawny fish that they have managed to net might spill out. Most people
seem to watch the stock market and think "I am on the verge of having
everything I have every desired" and have no time to notice the
government's inexorable "march to the sea" across the common ground of
their rights and freedom of action. It is always happening "to someone
else." Frightening a frycook or burger server will not address this.
> He had a certain political agenda: "Money ain't God, folks." I think each person has their own individual politics they's like to toy with. No need to stick to just one particular political slant.
Probably not, but part of the problem is the segregation of desires into
small (and thus controllable) niche groups. Surely part of the reason
for the 60s "successes" was the way in which many groups at least
temporarily put aside sectarianism for unity against a relatively few
injustices. How to recreate that?
> Barrett (and the others) blather on endlessly about what surrealism means, and never talk about what surrealists should do. What do the false surrealists do, besides talk? Nothing, as far as I can tell.
>
I have told you what we do, Nick. you might not appreciate it, but I
haven't heard much from you either. Please do share...
> Even you, Andrea, are guilty of talking a lot, without suggesting acts that can be performed by ANYONE to further the surrealist cause.
She doesn't want to further anything but herself and her "new managers."
Your blindness to such things will tend to cripple your actions,
whatever they might be.
> Above all, shouldn't we be PRACTICAL in our surrealist approach, and offer concrete ACTS that can be performed in the real world?
This sort of activity does go on in mailing groups outside this ng, but
Andrea and her cadaver hounds have made a hash of any collaborative
concern by diverting all the energies into dealing with their ignorance.
At any rate, street action is not enough; individual revolution through
play is just as important, and maybe more POSSIBLE at the moment. It is
worth discussing.
> This is a more useful line of questioning. It falls into the category of "making people think", in that the goal >is to create a schizophrenic experience in so-called "normals". Creating new experiences for others means >disrupting old thought patterns.
My girlfriend is a public health nurse, and deals with schizophrenics on
a regular basis. I have met a number of them, and I don;t see how
inducing a state such as that advances thought; the thought processes
are not stimulated as much as they are merely "spilled." I understand
what you are getting at, since I have "experimented" with LSD, but
that's a chemical process. Making funny faces at the zoo may not be as
effective as you would like, but I am curious to any acts you might
actually do, rather than talk about.
> Movies such as Lynch's "Lost Highway", and Carpenter's "In the Mouth of Madness" come close to creating schizophrenia in normals. At least, they fucked up my brain for the afternoon.
I don't know; I am not at all certain movies create schizophrenia. Most
people are rather bored by Lynch. I am not one of them, but... Carpenter
is entirely conventional to my mind...
A large dose of LSD might do it for good. Is this useful? I don't know.
I think you rely too much on the notion of de-rationalization as the key
to the future of surrealism. It strikes me as simplistic. The
surrealists appeared to appreciate the difference between schizophrenia
and imagination, and surrealism is not a rejection of realism but an
augmentation; much like nonsense is not the opposite of sense.
> But what sort of act can I, personally, go out and do to encourage schizophrenic like mindstates in the normals? Any ideas? Anyone?
Quit your job, burn all your money, take off your clothes, and pee in
Donald Trump's coffee? I like it. But (in many ways) I find the growing
neurosis of modern life as close to public schizophrenia as I want to
get. I have stood in line waiting for a bus in the morning, and it
seemed to me everyone was already quite insane in various ways.
>Play acting, becoming alternative selves allowing expression of aspects normally suppressed.
True. Concrete examples? Any personal experiences here? I am interested.
>
> It's one thing to do this by yourself or among friends. But we've all played Role Playing Games and it gets tiresome. I think it would be more productive to role play in the real world, and disturb the locals.
>
"Disturbing the locals" (and again I admit this is probably my age)
doesn't appeal to me. It used to, and I don't doubt its utility.
Actually, on a personal level I do this every day; by way of
confrontational humor. It does keep people off their guard, and I do it
rather naturally. So it is being done. I find it is difficult for people
to do their "business" around me, and (much like a brat) I enjoy their
discomfiture, although I try to let them in a little on it, or else it
degrades into repulsion. One must "disturb" with a mind towards
"absorption" of a kind.
> One surrealist wrote a tale in here -- or maybe he just emailed it to
me, I forget -- about him and some friends dressing up in white
"scientist" outfits and carrying around a geiger counter. They scared
and confused the heck out of the locals by putting on a little
"radiation play".
>
> "Good lord, the local tavern is awash with dangerous radiation!"
>
> This sort of role playing is intensely useful.
But what were the "positive" aspects? Or is the disturbance itself
enough?
> Off the top of my head, taking roles normally associated with authority, and somehow BREAKING them, >might be a useful role-play exercise. Dress up like FBI agents and harrass the locals in such a way that makes >them question the sanity of the powers that be and life in general.
They would probably only question your sanity, if they recognized you as
FBI. How would you be recognized as FBI unless you identified yourself
as such? And if you did (with badges, ID cards, etc.) are you willing to
risk imprisonment? I'm not...
> Step into the McDonald's, wander about for a bit, walk up to a local and say: "Ma'am, I'm inspector Nielson, with the FBI. I'm afraid I'm going to have to confiscate those french fries."
I don't find this productive or even clever. It sounds like a bit of
bad local access comedy. A friend and I have the habit of confronting
managers at airplane terminals, grocery stores, etc. with complaints
(humorlously presented one hopes) about their treatment of their
workers; mainly why these people must stand for 8 hours straight or
more! We have gotten into long conversations, attempting to break down
the unfounded assumptions (habitual thoughts) of these managers, and
been "rewarded" with thanks and such from the workers. I find this sort
of education process more productive, rather than upsetting the poor
medium wage "slave."
> Why limit our odd behavior to other surrealists? Why not spread a sense of artisitic unease and confusion to the world at large?
>
As I have explained, I do this as a rule of thumb, it is "natural" to
me.
> > vague rhetoric (so favored by Dale and Barrett)
Are you trying to forge a bridge to our hearts?
> > When I propose specific approaches of this type they are rejected because they aren't comfortably vague.
I do tend to find your ideas for action both conventional and
mis-guided, as explained above. They appear to me to be pointless, and
grounded ONLY in distrubance. I would prefer to hear a better program
from you. Do you have other ideas? As I have said, I do this sort of
thing (keeping in mind for instance that it doesn no good to frighten
the servers of hamburgers who are already ticked off and frightened by
their managers who are ticked off and frightened by their regional
overseers...), and have done it now for over 30 years.
Still, you talk so much about "doing thing" : what have you DONE lately?
I prefer complex intellectual blather and play to simplistic cries for
actions that never come. DO something, and report back the results, so
we might have a hypothetical basis from which to judge its utility.
DMH
Robert Scott Martin
barrett john erickson <bar...@magneticfields.org> wrote:
>> Either this newsgroup is in fact reality (the word is god), in which case
>> confronting whatever we find here is a confrontation of reality -- itself
>> a surrealist act -- as vital as any other interrogation of the "poetic
>> occasion"
>>
>> Or this newsgroup is nothing but phosphor and fog, in which case I'd
>> rather be offline carving pupettes than jousting with mirrors anyway.
>
>you set up a false opposition.
>
>the newsgroup, all of usenet, is a (merely) a cul-de-sac of reality.
Agreed, approved and I stand corrected.
>my objection was -- and remains -- that contrary to claim, the methods
>advocated and practiced do not force a confrontation with _reality_ as it is
>lived, but those who are working to _degrade the experience of that
>reality_.
This is very interesting, actually. So the surrealist project is an
attempt to subvert or overcome existing power structures (whether social
or psychological -- whatever keeps us from bataille's "water in water"
apprehension of the real), rather than a romantic railing against the
elements themselves?
In that case, it is interesting that, for alt.surrealism, the degrading
forces seem to have co-opted the tools of confrontation. Is there another
strategy for coping with such forces?
Either way, I am intrigued.
Bud
simple.
Leo Sgouros
> Abbie was fine. You burn money today it wouldn't work. Symbols and the
> audiences relation to them have changed; things are rather more neatly
> hushed up also. I don't know: I find this frustrating too. Also we
> cannot forget that most young men had the threat of death (the draft)
> hanging over their heads; the pleasure principle helped drive them into
> the streets of theater. I am afraid there is more than my aging
> complaicency at work here; there is a numbing apathy brought on by an
> imagined comfort. People are afraid to rock the boat, because the few
> scrawny fish that they have managed to net might spill out. Most people
> seem to watch the stock market and think "I am on the verge of having
> everything I have every desired" and have no time to notice the
> government's inexorable "march to the sea" across the common ground of
> their rights and freedom of action. It is always happening "to someone
> else." Frightening a frycook or burger server will not address this.
>
Why not?
What if we can give tools to the opressed, tools that are illusions but yet
ones that allow them to act at the level that they can affect directly.How
long before this passes up the , sorry, food chain(HAW HAW)
> > He had a certain political agenda: "Money ain't God, folks." I think
each person has their own individual politics they's like to toy with. No
need to stick to just one particular political slant.
>
> Probably not, but part of the problem is the segregation of desires into
> small (and thus controllable) niche groups. Surely part of the reason
> for the 60s "successes" was the way in which many groups at least
> temporarily put aside sectarianism for unity against a relatively few
> injustices. How to recreate that?
>
> > Barrett (and the others) blather on endlessly about what surrealism
means, and never talk about what surrealists should do. What do the false
surrealists do, besides talk? Nothing, as far as I can tell.
> >
> I have told you what we do, Nick. you might not appreciate it, but I
> haven't heard much from you either. Please do share...
>
> > Even you, Andrea, are guilty of talking a lot, without suggesting acts
that can be performed by ANYONE to further the surrealist cause.
>
Ideas are acts, Kimosabe, and you admit to the power of ideas and symbols.
> She doesn't want to further anything but herself and her "new managers."
> Your blindness to such things will tend to cripple your actions,
> whatever they might be.
>
What is wrong with alliances?
>
> > Above all, shouldn't we be PRACTICAL in our surrealist approach, and
offer concrete ACTS that can be performed in the real world?
>
> This sort of activity does go on in mailing groups outside this ng, but
> Andrea and her cadaver hounds have made a hash of any collaborative
> concern by diverting all the energies into dealing with their ignorance.
> At any rate, street action is not enough; individual revolution through
> play is just as important, and maybe more POSSIBLE at the moment. It is
> worth discussing.
>
> > This is a more useful line of questioning. It falls into the category
of "making people think", in that the goal >is to create a schizophrenic
experience in so-called "normals". Creating new experiences for others
means >disrupting old thought patterns.
>
Schizophrenia is saying the coffee is talking to you.
Acts are the creation of talking coffee.
El Bosco De Los Throckitos
wrote:
;-)4) Growing tired of your inability to stay on subject I intervene
;-)actively (this was less than a week ago.) I can justify every crosspost
;-)I made in terms of my surrealist project. A few have brought comments
;-)from outsiders on the subject of surrealism. Your contact with aav has
;-)resulted in your longest discourse on the subject in months. Yet now
;-)you claim it's an asinine friend, though you and your friends didn't
;-)mind posting hundreds and hundreds of post on such things as your
;-)opionion of Mr. Robert's bottom.
;-)
Clearly this is evidence that the three headed monster of alt surrealism
is a bunch of outies wishing they had an innie. Consider the pink
submarine of Mr Roberts filled with not only able bodied seamen, but also
busty navy nurses. Now it would follow, logically, that the submarine
should be an angry purple color and be devoid of busty females and yet the
denizens of the surrealist project are speculating on the qualities of Mr.
Robert's bottom.
And yet the waggle their flaccid pink arguments at the hypothesis that
they are estranged from the true creative process as it is too messy and
visceral for them. Dipshits.
Surrealism is dead. Long live neosurrealism.
-EL
Andrea Chen
> Surrealism is dead. Long live neosurrealism.
>
Cool! This makes 3 schisms so far to our surrealist project(tm)
1) Neu Surrealism
2) Post Surrealism
3) Neosurrealism
4) Red Shoe Surrealism
(see count em 3!)
not to mention
5) Brandon/Barrett/Dale surrealism which multiplied with the rest
creates an unreal number.
We should start thinking about how to fluff out each of our surrealist
projects while encouraging everyone on the net to create their own.
Remember each project should have lots of imaginery people, an
impressive hierarchy and one or more world (or in my case universe)
saving missions. We should also be prepared to accuse each other of
unspeakable crimes.
Remember the goal of surrealism is to release the imagination and this
includes delusions of grandeur.
Harry Claude Cat
Andrea Chen <fallin...@earthlink.net> wrote:
:>> Surrealism is dead. Long live neosurrealism.
: Cool! This makes 3 schisms so far to our surrealist project(tm)
:
: 1) Neu Surrealism
: 2) Post Surrealism
: 3) Neosurrealism
: 4) Red Shoe Surrealism
: not to mention
:
: 5) Brandon/Barrett/Dale surrealism which multiplied with the rest
: creates an unreal number.
You forgot
6) Contemporary surrealism
Surrealism for the rest of us.
--
NEW LINKS <http://sites.netscape.net/harryclaudecat/homepage/index.html>
Dale Houstman
Harry Claude Cat,
You forgot....
1 . Satori Surrealism
2. Sucatash Surrealism (big in the Midwest)
3. Heroin Chic Surrealism
4. Surly Surrealism (a speciality of the cadaver hounds)
5. Shirtless Surrealism (come to the beach...)
6. Skirtless Surrealism (...and bring your kid sister)
7. Surrealism with a Side Order of Baby Shrimp
8. Exxon Surrealism (Oily at Orly)
9. Gnu-Surrealism
10. Surrealism with a Fringe on the Top
11. Surrealism for Beginners
12. Surrealism -in-a-Bag
13. Surrealism-on-a-Stick
14. Frenchfried Surrealism
14. ParaSurrealism (as opposed to Paris Surrealism)
14. Ugly Tongue Surrealism
14. SewerRealism
14. Surrealism ala Glass Oranges
13. The "Best Years of Our Lives" Surrealism
12. Libertarian Surrealism
11. Answerealism
11. Ambulatory Surrealism
12. Surrealism-in-a-Basket
9. Melting Watch Surrealism
10. Watching Smelt Surrealism
10. Orrin Hatch Surrealism
10. Poserrealism
9. Beside-the-Pontillism Surrealism
________________________________
And many more: look in the B/D/B clique-book for a full list.
DMH
Asian Pirates
>
> >
> > Surrealism is dead. Long live neosurrealism.
> >
>
> Cool! This makes 3 schisms so far to our surrealist project(tm)
>
> 1) Neu Surrealism
> 2) Post Surrealism
> 3) Neosurrealism
> 4) Red Shoe Surrealism
>
>
> not to mention
>
> 5) Brandon/Barrett/Dale surrealism which multiplied with the rest
> creates an unreal number.
>
> projects while encouraging everyone on the net to create their own.
> Remember each project should have lots of imaginery people, an
> impressive hierarchy and one or more world (or in my case universe)
> saving missions. We should also be prepared to accuse each other of
> unspeakable crimes.
>
> Remember the goal of surrealism is to release the imagination and this
> includes delusions of grandeur.
You left out "Sansrealism", and "New Wave Bilderberg Surrealism".
The International Maritime Bureau, a division of the ICC Commercial
Crime Services, reports an upsurge of pirate attacks off the coast of
Somalia and in Brazilian ports.
At the same, the IMB is concerned about the constant nature of piracy
in Southeast Asian waters. Ships travelling to the affected region are
being advised to be particularly cautious when transiting the waters
between the South China Sea and the Java Sea. These pirates are using
relatively heavy weaponry (mortars and rocket-propelled grenades)
against vessels sailing in East African waters. The IMB advises vessels
to remain at least 50 nautical miles offshore when transiting the coastal
regions of Somalia. In recent incidents, the pirates off Somalia pretend
to be coast guards, there have even been such instances with corrupt
law enforcement officials. Their deception often begins with vocal
warnings through loudspeaker or radio, followed by attack with
automatic weaponry. It’s believed that some attacks are aimed at
gaining control of a ship in order to seize others, as the pirates' own
craft is usually too small and too slow to really be effective. Recently,
the pirates attacked a British registered racing yacht off the coast of
Somalia. The small pirate craft fired a mortar at the yacht in the Gulf of
Aden, and some of the pirates attempted to board the vessel.
Fortunately, the pirates quickly fled when a container ship and a
Canadian Navy vessel came to the yacht's rescue.
These recent piracy problems have been under the observation of the
United States, which is growing increasingly concerned about armed
gangs attacking vessels in the country's ports.
The International Maritime Bureau, a division of the ICC Commercial
Crime Services, reports an upsurge of pirate attacks off the coast of
Somalia and in Brazilian ports.
At the same, the IMB is concerned about the constant nature of piracy
in Southeast Asian waters. Ships travelling to the affected region are
being advised to be particularly cautious when transiting the waters
between the South China Sea and the Java Sea. These pirates are using
relatively heavy weaponry (mortars and rocket-propelled grenades)
against vessels sailing in East African waters. The IMB advises vessels
to remain at least 50 nautical miles offshore when transiting the coastal
regions of Somalia. In recent incidents, the pirates off Somalia pretend
to be coast guards, there have even been such instances with corrupt
law enforcement officials. Their deception often begins with vocal
warnings through loudspeaker or radio, followed by attack with
automatic weaponry. It’s believed that some attacks are aimed at
gaining control of a ship in order to seize others, as the pirates' own
craft is usually too small and too slow to really be effective. Recently,
the pirates attacked a British registered racing yacht off the coast of
Somalia. The small pirate craft fired a mortar at the yacht in the Gulf of
Aden, and some of the pirates attempted to board the vessel.
Fortunately, the pirates quickly fled when a container ship and a
Canadian Navy vessel came to the yacht's rescue.
These recent piracy problems have been under the observation of the
United States, which is growing increasingly concerned about armed
gangs attacking vessels in the country's ports.
g.v.w. iv
> You have all missed the point: Surrealism is the study of boredom. Plain and
> simple.
Or so Dale, Barrett, and Brandon would have us believe. But i suspect otherwise.
There must be more to it than simply the that.
--
gilbert vanburen wilkes iv
http://eserver.org/home/wilkes
<a href="http://www.2600.com/mindex.html">Free Kevin</a>
Revolutions are always verbose.
Leon Trotsky
El Bosco De Los Throckitos
wrote:
;-)
;-)
;-)Harry Claude Cat,
;-)
;-)
;-)You forgot....
;-)
;-)
;-)1 . Satori Surrealism
;-)2. Sucatash Surrealism (big in the Midwest)
;-)3. Heroin Chic Surrealism
;-)4. Surly Surrealism (a speciality of the cadaver hounds)
I'd like to subdivide this one into the following:
4a Surly Shirley Surrealism (and Laverne is getting testy too)
4b Surely Shirley You Aren't Calling Me Shirley Surrealism (Because
I'm getting pretty grouchy too, Marx my words)
4c DJ Surly Surl Surrealism (dedicated to the proposition that Breton got
a bad RAP from the white oppressors)
-EL
Leo Sgouros
El Bosco De Los Throckitos <er...@jetcity.com> wrote in message
news:3784362f....@news.jetcity.com...
1-really real surrealism
2- pseudo-surrealism in a bottle
3-surrealismm with a side of squirrel and a partridge in a fear tree
4-Max Von Sydow Planch gravitational surrealist(magnetic personalities)
5-Bobs surrealist drive through, existential floss for serrated teeth of
prehistoric puppy love.
6-Return of the surrealist
7 Seventh day surrealist coffer copper featuring a small shiny handle that
doean't do anything when you touch it, but it looks scary.
8-Grecian formula survivalist surrealist camp
Dale Houstman
El Bosco De Los Throckitos wrote:
>
> ;-)4. Surly Surrealism (a speciality of the cadaver hounds)
> I'd like to subdivide this one into the following:
>
> 4a Surly Shirley Surrealism (and Laverne is getting testy too)
You mean Tursis Laverne, the Cyprian pataphysician who combined
aspects of soccer and stagecraft into a new science of Tsursology, the
study of himself?
> 4b Surely Shirley You Aren't Calling Me Shirley Surrealism (Because
> I'm getting pretty grouchy too, Marx my words)
The motto: "If communism is dead, capitalism is undead"
> 4c DJ Surly Surl Surrealism (dedicated to the proposition that Breton got
> a bad RAP from the white oppressors)
"They who put Breton down, ain't done picked him up!"
DMH
Andrea Chen
there's out and produce manifestos and show that this is real
surrealism(tm) and all others are false.
Andrea Chen
> Hopefully you really dont belive that a liberally applied mind fuck of
> such a nature is a surrealist technique?
Technique doesn't assume morality which is exactly the point I was
making.
> Gimme a break. This is
> demonstrative of a fucked up reality ... OUR reality, not a mixture of
> fact and fantasy.
Lansdale played with the unconscious and created mixtures of fact and
fantasy.
> Lansdale coordinated efforts to put on shows, albeit
> to the extreme, that screwed with the mind of the "enemy" and
> disoriented them, making them vunerable in battle. And unfortunately,
> this happens in real life more often than most care to admit. But
> surrealism? Howe would this lead to a melding of fantasy and reality
> to unlock the potential of the human psyche?
How do many of Breton's behaviors unlock the potential of the human
psyche? Misogny, a tendency to expell those he disagred with or
regarded as rivals, dogma...
My point had to do with the moral issues involved in surrealism and the
fact that they are inseparable from the practice. Technique alone isn't
enough. However if one used Lansdales's less bloody games to undermine
aspects of American society many of them would call this inspired
surrealism.
What interests me is the techniques you use which is the cutting you
do. Here is my last paragraph.
>
> This later <brutality> would be a concern to me. But Brandon finds a young girl
> starving of anorexia beautiful, her suicide turns him on and Dale feels
> we have no need for emergency services (which means the death of
> millions) so my objection would be considered invalid by other
> surrealists.
I note that I don't accept such activities as legitimate surrealism and
yet you assign that claim to me. This is a piece of reality distortion
worthy of Landsdale.
colonel...@my-deja.com
statements below:
-
Nick:
This brings up a question. One of the greatest freakout artists was a
man named Lansdale. A fictional version of him is in Greene's "the
Quiet American." In the Filipines he had his boys follow behind the
guerillas grab one and then puncture the throat like it was vampires.
He planned to project the Virgin Mary off clouds with messages to
overthrow Castro.
Technically he and the other "cowboys" used and improved upon
surrealist techniques. If we could get a couple of dozen like them
tweaking with American society we could drive the place wild, our
unconscious would be running rampant in the streets. But are they
surrealists? If not because of their politics? Or because of the
brutality of the methods they are willing to use?
-
Maj. Gen. Ed Lansdale was a player, a major CIA operative whose
exploits have been well noted by various researchers, including a
prominent paranormal researcher that documented the above mentioned
activities as demonstrative evidence of historical reference of covert
PsyOp activity of a political bend.
Hopefully you really dont belive that a liberally applied mind fuck of
such a nature is a surrealist technique? Gimme a break. This is
demonstrative of a fucked up reality ... OUR reality, not a mixture of
fact and fantasy. Lansdale coordinated efforts to put on shows, albeit
to the extreme, that screwed with the mind of the "enemy" and
disoriented them, making them vunerable in battle. And unfortunately,
this happens in real life more often than most care to admit. But
surrealism? Howe would this lead to a melding of fantasy and reality
to unlock the potential of the human psyche?
-
They might object to the political focus of Landsdale. Does
surrealism have a range of unaccceptable politics?
-
LOL... yeah, what a question. I see no one bothered to answer...
"The movement represented a reaction against what its members saw as
the destruction wrought by the "rationalism" that had guided European
culture and politics in the past and had culminated in the horrors of
World War I. Surrealism was a means of reuniting conscious and
unconscious realms of experience so completely that the world of dream
and fantasy would be joined by the everyday ration world in an absolute
reality, a surreality" (Pioch).
I recall reading about one of Salvador Felipe Jacinto Dali i Domenech's
first dates with his soul mate, Gala Eluard. The young Dali, eager to
impress, dressed in a white blouse. Viewing himself in a mirror, Dali
was moved to slice a bit of the blouse with a straight razor to
unsanitize the outfit. Moved by the new look, he slashed again
attempting to improve the look. During this transformation, he
accidentally cut himself, causing crimson red to stain the blouse.
Intrigued, Dali proceeded to slash again and again, intentionally
marking the blouse with blood.
This, of course, impresses me. Lansdale and (your reference), while
they may demonstrate innovative techiniques, do not.
- HapLess (and plane polarized)
The only difference between me and a madman is that I am not mad"
(Salvador Dali)
Sent via Deja.com http://www.deja.com/
Share what you know. Learn what you don't.
Kilgore Trout
Andrea Chen <fallin...@earthlink.net> wrote:
> Technique doesn't assume morality which is exactly the point I
was making.
> Lansdale played with the unconscious and created mixtures of
fact and fantasy.
Yes, Lansdale played with the unconscious and created mixtures of fact
and fantasy. But even though there is a mixture or reality (war) and
fantasy (vampirism), or reality (invasion of Cuban soil) and fantasy
(Virgin Mary in the clouds), does this mean this is technically a
surrealistic technique? I tend to believe that merely thumping the
unconscious does not constitute surrealism. Neither does simple
juxtaposition of incongruous imagery alone, even when invoking fear, an
unconscious primal psychological response. So, back to the original
intent of the thread, "What Surrealism Is"...
>> Lansdale coordinated efforts to put on shows, albeit
>> to the extreme, that screwed with the mind of the "enemy" and
>> disoriented them, making them vunerable in battle. And
unfortunately,
>> this happens in real life more often than most care to admit. But
>> surrealism? Howe would this lead to a melding of fantasy and reality
>> to unlock the potential of the human psyche?
>
> How do many of Breton's behaviors unlock the potential of the
human psyche? Misogny, a
> tendency to expell those he disagred with or regarded as rivals,
dogma...
>
> My point had to do with the moral issues involved in surrealism
and the fact that they are
> inseparable from the practice. Technique alone isn't nough. However
if one used Lansdales's less
> bloody egames to undermine aspects of American society many of them
would call this inspired
> surrealism.
What "less bloody" games? I know of none. Throwing live Vietcong from
helicopters as an interrogation technique, forcing the last living
captive to "spill the beans" to prevent the final plunge? Or
perhaps the charade in the Phillipines where Lansdale's cronies "faked"
battles, with his men playing both sides fence, a kind of militaristic
professional wrestling show, with the "dead" rising later to meet the
others downstream for a beer and a meal once the show was done? And
what of the motives behind the acts, which are as important to
surrealism (and psyop) as not?
Quoting from a prior post:
"Which is why I reduce surrealism to the concept that we go out and do
things that cause people to think, set up weirdness, create oddities for
the masses to stumble upon. Basically, bring back the good old
fashioned "freak out" of the 60s."
The thread is evolving into a discussion of living surrealism brought
to fruition. Nick wants action, wants to freak out the world; you, you
talk about one of the alleged greatest freak out artists and ask
what limits would be imposed, if any. You state that the brutality
employed by the likes of Lansdale would be "a concern" to you and later
ask if there is a range of unacceptable politics in surrealism. I mean,
the guy is talking abouty puttin onions in telebooths and you segue
into examples of a brutal murderer. Maybe I should be telling you that
you are completely and utterly nuts.
> What interests me is the techniques you use which is the
cutting you do. Here is my last
> paragraph.
>
> This later <brutality> would be a concern to me. But
Brandon finds a young girl
> starving of anorexia beautiful, her suicide turns him on and Dale
feels
> we have no need for emergency services (which means the death of
> millions) so my objection would be considered invalid by other
> surrealists.
>
> I note that I don't accept such activities as legitimate
surrealism and yet you assign that
> claim to me. This is a piece of reality distortion worthy of
Landsdale.
LOL. No, the cutting that is pertinent is not that I left out verbiage
from your post rather that I did not include a critical portion of the
quotation which I did copied in my original post:
"...but Surrealism's emphasis was not on negation but on positive
expression."
I thank you for the thought anyway.
- HapLess (and plane polarized)
Andrea Chen
> Yes, Lansdale played with the unconscious and created mixtures of fact
> and fantasy. But even though there is a mixture or reality (war) and
> fantasy (vampirism), or reality (invasion of Cuban soil) and fantasy
> (Virgin Mary in the clouds), does this mean this is technically a
> surrealistic technique? I tend to believe that merely thumping the
> unconscious does not constitute surrealism. Neither does simple
> juxtaposition of incongruous imagery alone, even when invoking fear, an
> unconscious primal psychological response. So, back to the original
> intent of the thread, "What Surrealism Is"...
I think we both agree that it's not simply "liberating the unconscious"
(a definition which has been offered many times in this group.) Hitler
certainly freed the unconscious of (many of) the German people.
I find the rhetoric of Breton and other of the early surrealists
disturbing because they don't acknowledge a dark side.
I have claimed that a necessary part of a worthwhile surrealism is
finding ways of protecting us from the unconscious which might include
illustrating ways in which certain behaviors can be triggered.
As for the line between surrealism and surrealist technique, a lot of
art does use the technique, is referred to by the critics as
surrealistic, but if this is enough we are faced once again with the
work of Landsdale.
There is some sort of moral position necessary and some sort of
direction, the problem being that this offers an endless playground for
the righteous and self satsified who have sought reasons why x can't be
surrealist and whose approach I recently imitated.
I'm not sure the problem is solvable except by "I'll know it if I see
it," but still some definition is possible and I think this important,
there must be some form of "objective" testing. Otherwise surrealism
becomes defined by the clique which captures the name and naturally (the
unconscious playing) assumes it's noble while all others are...
fla...@earthlink.net
>
> You have all missed the point: Surrealism is the study of
dumb boar.
Plain and simple.
Kilgore Trout
etc. One day he shows up to his class and one side of his face is clean
shaven and his hair is closely cropped. The other side was just as it
was the day before... hair down his back with a full beard. It was a
weird sight, and he remained this way for the rest of his school term.
A great technique, and it really shook folks up, especially when he
continued to show up this way for months. People just would not stop
staring at him. He was a man of committed action.
Pretty surrealistic image, though not necessarily surrealism.
If one is to assume that morality truly is an important issue, and I
believe your affirmation to be genuine, then we must address another
problem (which you have patiently alluded to):
that nothing is as simple as bolded black and white, even when dressed
in the muted tones of autumn or the gaia shades of spring.
Only shades of grey. +This+ is the conundrum that long term players
in the intelligence community and law enforcement at large face on a
perennial basis after toxic exposure to covert or criminal activity.
Lansdale?
I am really curious what objective tests are available that are valid,
whether you apply them or not (or recommend it). Is this part of your
project?
And now...
I dreampt a face from a telephone,
that rang and rang and rang.
Answering I said... "Hello"?
(an echo reply - sustain).
Such is the barking nightmare of life,
when withered and wilted and drained;
Love, applied, bends olde laws ...pause...
Coda: Dal Ségno al fine.
Please wake me when The Dweller comes... I'll have mine "al dente".
- Mustard
Leo Sgouros
Kilgore Trout <colonel...@my-deja.com> wrote in message
news:7me901$6af$1...@nnrp1.deja.com...
Once a wheat field, now sandy.
A test to see who has burnt out of a game?
A test for what, exactly?
Thermo-induction of morality?
And I am afraid building the better human is now down to an art.
There is nothing in those bones and dust but me.
_L_
Andrea Chen
> If one is to assume that morality truly is an important issue, and I
> believe your affirmation to be genuine, then we must address another
> problem (which you have patiently alluded to):
>
> that nothing is as simple as bolded black and white, even when dressed
> in the muted tones of autumn or the gaia shades of spring.
>
> Only shades of grey. +This+ is the conundrum that long term players
> in the intelligence community and law enforcement at large face on a
> perennial basis after toxic exposure to covert or criminal activity.
> Lansdale?
>
> I am really curious what objective tests are available that are valid,
> whether you apply them or not (or recommend it). Is this part of your
> project?
>
The questions of tests in genral is interesting and leads to a
fascinating behavior in this group. A number of individuals have
decided that they know what surrealism is and yet they use variable
standards. 6 months ago Breton was the measure of all things, now
Brandon says he's obsolete.
In terms of testing whether something is surrealism in general I have
used general definitions given by our elite such as "surrealism is
liberating the unconscious" and tried to justify certain proposals in
that context. This has been deemed unacceptable.
The result is a map of how ordinary humans decide "right and wrong."
It becomes a matter of cliques. Contradictory principles and often
absurd statements are used to attack and defend. Among allies
differences in fundamental opinion are ignored.
I would argue that this is in fact the power of the unconscious or at
least the power of behavior which isn't consciously examined (and in
some cases such examination seems beyond the individual.)
Outrageously extrapolating from this I would argue that surrealism must
advance to the place where it not only "liberates" aspects of the
unconscious to run free, but also examines them and tames them, in other
words acts to liberate us from the unconscious.
Of course when we lack unconsciously driven certainties and
righteousness, things do become fuzzy. This is where my understanding
of the moral issues fall. For example while I can say the aesthetic
power of a young girl dying of anorexia, I can't agree with Brandon that
it's a gloriously beautiful thing. Nor shall I be moved by pleas to my
unconscious (also made by victoria) that disagreeing with this type of
person is oh so middle class and not with it.
The problem wit trying to draw up ethics is that it's tough. My own
feeling about surrealism is that lightly or strongly it should be
briefly or fundamentally alter the sens of normality allowing a shift of
assumptions and examination. Techniques for doing so are varied, for
example I think claiming words like "surrealist project" which have
previously been used as a magical indicator of accomplishment and making
them almost absurd is a reminder of the way we are hypnotized by
language. But it might be painful to someone who has invested a lot in
this security blanket. So one can't say surralist ethics doesn't allow
causing pain.
As for violence? Would it be ok to shoot Hitler? Certainly we can't
exclude all people who say yes. So it's ok to hurt bad people, but this
brings us (as it brings most "revolutionary" groups) to excactly the
same moral position as the society they despise xcept the bad people is
a different group.
Veronica Speedwell
Andrea Chen wrote:
> My own
> feeling about surrealism is that lightly or strongly it should be
> briefly or fundamentally alter the sens of normality allowing a shift of
> assumptions and examination.
The essence of surrealism is hereby articulated!
Dale Houstman
No, Andrea is articulated, like the legs of a praying mantis (I often
envision her with her mouthparts full of chitin wings); her statement is
so vague and meandering that it could just as well apply to drunken
bowling night down at the Stardust Lanes. If she had gone to just a
little more trouble to avoid saying anything, she wouldn't have turned
on her computer at all, lightly or strongly, briefly or fundamentally.
And not "normality" (which is in itself a notoriously slippery term),
but a "sense of normality!" Stunning limpness from her "New Manageress."
It seems like her falcon finally ate her tape loop.
DMH
Veronica Speedwell
> Veronica Speedwell wrote:
> >
> > Andrea Chen wrote:
> >
> > > My own
> > > feeling about surrealism is that lightly or strongly it should be
> > > briefly or fundamentally alter the sens of normality allowing a shift of
> > > assumptions and examination.
> >
> > The essence of surrealism is hereby articulated!
>
> No, Andrea is articulated, like the legs of a praying mantis (I often
> envision her with her mouthparts full of chitin wings); her statement is
> so vague and meandering that it could just as well apply to drunken
> bowling night down at the Stardust Lanes.
Let's see:
> > My own
> > feeling about drunken bowling night down at the Stardust Lanes
> > is that lightly or strongly it should be
> > briefly or fundamentally alter the sens of normality allowing a shift of
> > assumptions and examination.
By George, I think she's got it!
Dale Houstman
Veronica Speedwell
> My own
> feeling about drunken bowling night down at the Stardust Lanes
> is that lightly or strongly it should be
> briefly or fundamentally alter the sens of normality allowing a shift of
> assumptions and examination.
My own drinking about Stardust briefs is that light is fundamentally a
shift, or should be.
DMH
Andrea Chen
> envision her with her mouthparts full of chitin wings); her statement is
> bowling night down at the Stardust Lanes.
As are your own statements about liberating the imagination or taking
down artificial barriers.
I have tried to discuss your various approaches with you. You become
silent or resort to accusations.
I have given many specifics of what surrealism possibly is. One
possible technique is an approach that shows another mind (both
conscious and unconscious) react and then examines the nature of the
reactions.
This certainly ties into and extends Breton's infatuation with Freuduan
therapy and extends it by allowing many thinkers since into the mix.
It's a theoretically consistent development of surrealism.
Here are a few interesting points about you:
- The first time I emciuntered you I warned you that you were vulnerable
to an endless loop of flame, you denied it. Yet in the last few months
you have engaged him hundreds of times for his pleasure while you
sometimes become outraged. It certainly distracts from your "surrealist
project."
- You accuse others of being unable to engage in dialogue and yet you
are unable to do such a thing, to answer points and stick to issues.
You always chose the vague, you are an "anarchist," yet I doubt if you
know the rudiments of even Bakunin. You create a world of words which
sound nice (buttons), you react negatively and harshly to anything
outside of it.
I will be happy to discuss details with you. I have confronted you,
Brandon and Dale on many points. No answer.
Let's discuss the "morality" of surrealism, that was the gist of my
post from which Veronica clipped a bit. Or have you (as I suspect)
killfiled me because unlike Gilbert I confront you on issues?
And what's this compulsion which makes you accuse people of behaviors
of which you are guilty? Certainly exploring this all too frequent
human trait would be an object worthy of surrealism?
Deekoo L.
AC> silent or resort to accusations.
A logical reaction, when confronted with an obvious attempt at establishing
Xlp hegemony over surrealism, and, by extension, the subversion of the
Discordian rebel movement which has caused more casualties amongst the Xlp
armies than any other counterinsurgency on Earth (with the possible exception
of the Latvian People's Militia).
Flaagg
<bogus...@gwc1.com> says...
So, anyway, like I was saying, this old fucker looks at Jerry and says
"You know you just got yer arm blowed off, right?", and Jerry says
"Yeah", so this old guy says "Don't it hurt?", and Jerry says "Yeah,
it hurts, it hurts one FUCK of a lot", so the old guy says "Yeah,
blowed off arms tend to do that".
--
Aaron M. Henne - mhm9x2 -
http://www.navicom.net/~flaagg
Andrea Chen
>
> AC> I have tried to discuss your various approaches with you. You become
> AC> silent or resort to accusations.
>
> A logical reaction, when confronted with an obvious attempt at establishing
> Xlp hegemony over surrealism, and, by extension, the subversion of the
> Discordian rebel movement which has caused more casualties amongst the Xlp
> armies than any other counterinsurgency on Earth (with the possible exception
> of the Latvian People's Militia).
>
>
This is propaganda spread by my enemies. My collaboration with the Xlp
was purely disinformation designed to lull them into confidence (how
could they lose with me on their side) so that the Discordians and the
gallant Estonian (not Latvian) people's army could lure them into chaos.
I have always been a friend of Disocordia even when I was making fun of
it and back when I led the neu neutopian movement discord was recognized
as a necessary process for only through chaos can the deep order assert
itself and flip us to the edge in a fractal orgy of degenerating text
vanishing into meaning.
As is well known neu neutopia is dead. I've found it impossible to
rule the entire universe in my spare time. As a hobby I have taken up
neu surrealism which seeks to make the unconscious concious (or is it
the other way around) and splatter it all over Usenet in tasteful,
responsible ways (I say this for the censors.)
I cordially invite the discordians to gather and form a provisional
government for alt.surrealism because we only have 2 funtioinig
governments now (the previous administration having denied it was a
government has fled in the face of civilization) and as we all know it
takes at least 6 absolute tyranies to dermocratically rule one group.
Gary Thain
>
> AC> I have tried to discuss your various approaches with you. You become
> AC> silent or resort to accusations.
>
> A logical reaction, when confronted with an obvious attempt at establishing
> Xlp hegemony over surrealism, and, by extension, the subversion of the
> Discordian rebel movement which has caused more casualties amongst the Xlp
> armies than any other counterinsurgency on Earth (with the possible exception
> of the Latvian People's Militia).
Oddly enough, a disproportionate number of Latvians (or Letts) had
high positions in the Soviet secret police, especially in its days
as the "Cheka" under Feliks Dzerzhinsky. Latvian "special troops"
were also used for operations which, apparently, Russians just
couldn't be trusted to conduct.
Flaagg
<lsgo...@tampabay.rr.com> says...
>206E/2105/3012
Launch code to an ICBM located in a hidden missile silo underneath a
farm in Fullbrook, Kansas?
Gary Thain
>
> 206E/2105/3012
Nell Carter?
> Gary Thain <gth...@uriah-heeep.com> wrote in message
> news:3793E0...@uriah-heeep.com...
> This was common.
> You dont use troops loyal to any of the memes that you hope to destroy.
I suppose not: just look at how the Romanovs used the Kazakhs to
quell disorders, real and imagined, throughout their history. In
fact, Dzerzhinsky himself was a Pole.
Leo Sgouros
206E/2105/3012
Leo Sgouros
Subject: Unicode
Date: Monday, July 19, 1999 7:37 PM
I have decided to convert alt.religion.kibology from ASCII to Unicode.
Unicode is the modern version of SUPER ESPERANTO!!! to allow all of us
to understand each other with greater ease than if we didn't use lots
of weird symbols.
From now on, all words you say should contain at least two or three
of the funny symbols from the Unicode character set in order to ensure
Unicode compliance. Here are your best bets for general use, with their
hexadecimal character numbers to make them easier to find on your new
65,536-key keyboard, as excerpted from the Unicode standard:
0255 : LATIN SMALL LETTER C WITH CURL
0256 : LATIN SMALL LETTER D WITH TAIL
0257 : LATIN SMALL LETTER D WITH HOOK
0258 : LATIN SMALL LETTER REVERSED E
0259 : LATIN SMALL LETTER SCHWA
025A : LATIN SMALL LETTER SCHWA WITH HOOK
025B : LATIN SMALL LETTER OPEN E
025C : LATIN SMALL LETTER REVERSED OPEN E
025D : LATIN SMALL LETTER REVERSED OPEN E WITH HOOK
025E : LATIN SMALL LETTER CLOSED REVERSED OPEN E
025F : LATIN SMALL LETTER DOTLESS J WITH STROKE
0260 : LATIN SMALL LETTER G WITH HOOK
0261 : LATIN SMALL LETTER SCRIPT G
0262 : LATIN LETTER SMALL CAPITAL G
0263 : LATIN SMALL LETTER GAMMA
0264 : LATIN SMALL LETTER RAMS HORN
0265 : LATIN SMALL LETTER TURNED H
0266 : LATIN SMALL LETTER H WITH HOOK
0267 : LATIN SMALL LETTER HENG WITH HOOK
0268 : LATIN SMALL LETTER I WITH STROKE
0269 : LATIN SMALL LETTER IOTA
026A : LATIN LETTER SMALL CAPITAL I
026B : LATIN SMALL LETTER L WITH MIDDLE TILDE
026C : LATIN SMALL LETTER L WITH BELT
026D : LATIN SMALL LETTER L WITH RETROFLEX HOOK
026E : LATIN SMALL LETTER LEZH
026F : LATIN SMALL LETTER TURNED M
0270 : LATIN SMALL LETTER TURNED M WITH LONG LEG
0271 : LATIN SMALL LETTER M WITH HOOK
0272 : LATIN SMALL LETTER N WITH LEFT HOOK
0273 : LATIN SMALL LETTER N WITH RETROFLEX HOOK
0274 : LATIN LETTER SMALL CAPITAL N
0275 : LATIN SMALL LETTER BARRED O
0276 : LATIN LETTER SMALL CAPITAL OE
0277 : LATIN SMALL LETTER CLOSED OMEGA
0278 : LATIN SMALL LETTER PHI
0279 : LATIN SMALL LETTER TURNED R
027A : LATIN SMALL LETTER TURNED R WITH LONG LEG
027B : LATIN SMALL LETTER TURNED R WITH HOOK
027C : LATIN SMALL LETTER R WITH LONG LEG
027D : LATIN SMALL LETTER R WITH TAIL
027E : LATIN SMALL LETTER R WITH FISHHOOK
027F : LATIN SMALL LETTER REVERSED R WITH FISHHOOK
0280 : LATIN LETTER SMALL CAPITAL R
0281 : LATIN LETTER SMALL CAPITAL INVERTED R
0282 : LATIN SMALL LETTER S WITH HOOK
0283 : LATIN SMALL LETTER ESH
0284 : LATIN SMALL LETTER DOTLESS J WITH STROKE AND HOOK
0285 : LATIN SMALL LETTER SQUAT REVERSED ESH
0286 : LATIN SMALL LETTER ESH WITH CURL
0287 : LATIN SMALL LETTER TURNED T
0288 : LATIN SMALL LETTER T WITH RETROFLEX HOOK
0454 : CYRILLIC SMALL LETTER UKRAINIAN IE
0455 : CYRILLIC SMALL LETTER DZE
0456 : CYRILLIC SMALL LETTER BYELORUSSIAN-UKRAINIAN I
0457 : CYRILLIC SMALL LETTER YI
0458 : CYRILLIC SMALL LETTER JE
0459 : CYRILLIC SMALL LETTER LJE
045A : CYRILLIC SMALL LETTER NJE
045B : CYRILLIC SMALL LETTER TSHE
045C : CYRILLIC SMALL LETTER KJE
045E : CYRILLIC SMALL LETTER SHORT U
045F : CYRILLIC SMALL LETTER DZHE
0460 : CYRILLIC CAPITAL LETTER OMEGA
0461 : CYRILLIC SMALL LETTER OMEGA
0462 : CYRILLIC CAPITAL LETTER YAT
0463 : CYRILLIC SMALL LETTER YAT
0464 : CYRILLIC CAPITAL LETTER IOTIFIED E
0465 : CYRILLIC SMALL LETTER IOTIFIED E
0466 : CYRILLIC CAPITAL LETTER LITTLE YUS
0467 : CYRILLIC SMALL LETTER LITTLE YUS
0468 : CYRILLIC CAPITAL LETTER IOTIFIED LITTLE YUS
0469 : CYRILLIC SMALL LETTER IOTIFIED LITTLE YUS
0482 : CYRILLIC THOUSANDS SIGN
0483 : COMBINING CYRILLIC TITLO
0484 : COMBINING CYRILLIC PALATALIZATION
0485 : COMBINING CYRILLIC DASIA PNEUMATA
0486 : COMBINING CYRILLIC PSILI PNEUMATA
0490 : CYRILLIC CAPITAL LETTER GHE WITH UPTURN
0491 : CYRILLIC SMALL LETTER GHE WITH UPTURN
0492 : CYRILLIC CAPITAL LETTER GHE WITH STROKE
0493 : CYRILLIC SMALL LETTER GHE WITH STROKE
0494 : CYRILLIC CAPITAL LETTER GHE WITH MIDDLE HOOK
0495 : CYRILLIC SMALL LETTER GHE WITH MIDDLE HOOK
06D7 : ARABIC SMALL HIGH LIGATURE QAF WITH LAM WITH ALEF MAKSURA
06EC : ARABIC ROUNDED HIGH STOP WITH FILLED CENTRE
0F36 : TIBETAN MARK CARET -DZUD RTAGS BZHI MIG CAN
201F : DOUBLE HIGH-REVERSED-9 QUOTATION MARK
206D : ACTIVATE ARABIC FORM SHAPING
206E : NATIONAL DIGIT SHAPES
206F : NOMINAL DIGIT SHAPES
2105 : CARE OF
2106 : CADA UNA
2107 : EULER CONSTANT
2108 : SCRUPLE
2279 : NEITHER GREATER-THAN NOR LESS-THAN
2369 : APL FUNCTIONAL SYMBOL GREATER-THAN DIAERESIS
2532 : BOX DRAWINGS LEFT LIGHT AND RIGHT DOWN HEAVY
2638 : WHEEL OF DHARMA
2639 : WHITE FROWNING FACE
3010 : LEFT BLACK LENTICULAR BRACKET
3012 : POSTAL MARK
3191 : IDEOGRAPHIC ANNOTATION REVERSE MARK
33FE : IDEOGRAPHIC TELEGRAPH SYMBOL FOR DAY THIRTY-ONE
FE3A : PRESENTATION FORM FOR VERTICAL RIGHT TORTOISE SHELL BRACKET
So, anyway, in order to ensure Unicode compliance, please inject
a couple of Presentation Forms For Vertical Right Tortoise Shell Brackets
into your conversation to make what you're saying absolutely clear,
unless you're actually talking about tortoise shells, in which case
insert the Arabic Rounded High Stop With Filled Centre. Mmm, filled
centre...
-- K.
Oh, and I forgot to mention, all food
products will now be in metric...
in hexadecimal.
I'm also still working on getting
alt.religion.kibology ISO-666
certified.
--
_ -`-.'(`-'-
| | -`-`) _____ `-/
| | ) _ .' ____) (-.
| | ` (|)| ( (|) \
| | oo ) )m\ ( (` lsgo...@tampabay.rr.com
| ) .'_">o -' VwwV \ ' (``-._
|(| / =___ ___ )( \ \ __ _ >-.-._.-'-`-<.-<'-<''-._
| `( // _ \/ _ \ '-. @\ \ / _` |/ _ \| | | | '_.' _ \/ __)
| |_``( __/ (_) ) )/\ww/\) ( (_| | (_) ) `-' | | ( (_) \__ \
|)_____`.__)`._.' '(_____.' `._, |`._.'_`._,_|_|._`._.') | |
( .-. oo / .-.__.' F ___ (__ .-.___.' .' F
`( `'_">o _.-' (______.' \`._`-.____(______.-' .'
`` `` '(__.' ``` `._`______________.-'
206E/2105/3012
Flaagg <fla...@not.val1d.net> wrote in message
news:MPG.11fd85332...@news.navicom.net...
Tygett
what<--- surrealism is?
the thought of her blue eyes caused a raindrop to fall on my right cheek I
supposed, and lapsed into another keyboard flamenco, how much of her awareness
was ours, how much of it hers, when did it start being mostly me,
surrealism is the balloon parachute that descends from the sky and snatches you
lifting you to peril and deflating so that you may fall harmlessly to safety?