a short book of definitions (an exercise in reflex)
barrett john erickson
a contraction of neuter.
neutopia (n.)
senseless gibberish disguised as a psuedo-philosophical vision.
neu neutopia (n.)
neutered senseless gibberish disguised as psuedo-philosophical vision.
neu surrealist (n., illiterate)
a neutered psuedo-surrealist, or one who promotes a mutilation of surrealist
theory in which desire is flattened and the "liberation of the imagination"
has been deformed into the "manipulation of buttons."
personalist (n.)
one who proclaims that he/she is entitled to ignore shared reality and
existing context (historical and current) especially when discussing matters
of theory -- particularly surrealist theory. The personalist believes, for
example, that it is sufficient for him/her to declare some belief or
position compatible with "surrealism" for it to be so (e.g. religion) and
that the disagreement (even universal disagreement) of surrealists past and
present is irrelevant. Consequently, the personalist is often found in a
defensive posture, hopelessly outnumbered by those he/she claims are trying
to enforce some orthodoxy, but who are in reality only insisting that they
have no obligation to accept the personalist's unilateral redefinitions, and
will continue to challenge them as incompatible with that theory as it
already exists.
reality (n.,)
usually referring to manifest reality or reality-as-experienced, this is a
word in significant transition due to the advancing probes of science and
art. It is now recognized as an enactive process and requires distinction
between its sub-processes before any in-depth discussion so as to avoid
significant confusion:
latent reality
personal reality
shared reality
surreal (adj., illiterate)
a vulgar colloquialism popularized as a synonym for "weird" or "bizarre,"
this is a word with no meaning whatsoever among surrealists, except as a
certain identifier of the user's carelessness or ignorance. [also: --
surrealistic, (adj.) -- surrealistically, (adv.)]
surrealism (n.,)
one of the most misused words of our time. Its communicative value is
limited to attempts to correct misrepresentations of the surrealist project.
Should always be enclosed in quotation marks to acknowledge its recuperated
status in popular culture.
surrealist (n.)
a person who has understood and committed him/herself to the surrealist
project as it has been theoretically explored, witnessed and collectively
practiced -- not as a "school" or a "style" or a "club" or a "set of rules"
but as the intuitive recognition of a fundamental life imperative. A
surrealist is one who has internalized and _extended_ (not contradicted and
reversed) this project in freshly discovered fields of investigation as well
as along existing trajectories toward the marvelous begun by fallen
colleagues.
surrealist project (n., process)
the fundamental life imperative among surrealists, revolutionary in scope
and intent. The surrealist project is a continuous process directed toward
achieving an enhanced reality -- a (sur)reality -- in which the liberated
imagination is fully integrated into daily living. Surrealists recognize
this as a collective and collaborative process requiring a social
transformation as well as a personal one.
truth (n.,)
a social agreement on particular characteristics or attributes of shared
reality (the greater the consensus, the more compelling the "truth"). As
such, it is significantly less interesting than reality. [syn: fact]
-- 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
>
> neu (adj.,)
> a contraction of neuter.
>
What's not male lacks neuter?
Actually the meaning is "new" with links to Von Neumann and Doctress
Neutopia one of the greatest unintentional satirists ever.
> neutopia (n.)
> senseless gibberish disguised as a psuedo-philosophical vision.
>
This is interesting since you have never attempted to answer a single
point. The buttons "gibberish" and "pseudo" are meaningless, and
certainly from the viewpoint of classical philosophy surrealism itself
was pseudo philosophy.
> neu neutopia (n.)
> neutered senseless gibberish disguised as psuedo-philosophical vision.
>
Neu neutopia is the "imminent death of the net" Neu Neutopians don't
necessarily want to create neu neutopia.
> neu surrealist (n., illiterate)
> a neutered psuedo-surrealist, or one who promotes a mutilation of surrealist
> theory in which desire is flattened and the "liberation of the imagination"
> has been deformed into the "manipulation of buttons."
>
Not really. "Buttons" are only one aspect. It's fascinating you can
see no other. Neu surrealism takes themes common to the surrealist.
Textually when successful it somewhat creates some of the effects found
in surrelaist graphic work. Realities twist from one to another,
identities flipped and so on. It frequently employs myths (which are
buttons) of both the larger society and the net which it mixes. It
provides a strange attractor which causes people to add ideas depending
on their mood in much the same way in which one early surrealist artist
would draw one part of a picture and then the next artist would draw
another. Often it seeks to link the works of currently unseen artists
(in other groups) so that both themes come together in unexpected ways.
> personalist (n.)
> one who proclaims that he/she is entitled to ignore shared reality and
> existing context (historical and current) especially when discussing matters
> of theory -- particularly surrealist theory. The personalist believes, for
> example, that it is sufficient for him/her to declare some belief or
> position compatible with "surrealism" for it to be so (e.g. religion) and
> that the disagreement (even universal disagreement) of surrealists past and
> present is irrelevant. Consequently, the personalist is often found in a
> defensive posture, hopelessly outnumbered by those he/she claims are trying
> to enforce some orthodoxy, but who are in reality only insisting that they
> have no obligation to accept the personalist's unilateral redefinitions, and
> will continue to challenge them as incompatible with that theory as it
> already exists.
>
Religion is defined as the belief in supernatural powers (it's not
necessarily organized religion.) Breton used oija boards which make
such assumptions though he may have found them simply a tool in pulling
images from the unconscious, none the less he did invoke what can be
considered a religious ritual.
There is also the point made by Breton about a state of mind in which
apparent opposites merge together. It's unclear that from this apsect
(and Breton) was inconsistent whether religion and surrealism are
incompatible.
Incidently your statement about people you dislike being "hopelessly
outnumbered" is absurd. You are a handful of individuals in a group.
Someone wanders in with a point you don't like, flamewars ensue, that
person wanders out, lurkers become bored and the little clique remains.
It has no capacity to attract and unite artists which is why surrealism
was successful and why the neu neutopian movement was successful on a
smaller scale. It's a discussion group and dozens like it can be found
on the net. Socially it's no more important that the Midtown Libraries
Literary Discussion group which meets on the 2nd and 4th Tuesdays of
each month (except August.)
It sits here with the grandest publishing medium in the history of the
world (which is offered free) and rather than figure out how to take
this medium and use it to compete with the social order it bitches
about, it discusses what surrealism is and what surrealism isn't (just
as it's equivalent 60 years ago discussed what art was and what it
wasn't with many claiming that surrealism wasn't art, that true art
stopped with symbolism.)
Once again neu neutopia is more accurate to the original vision of
surrealism for (while mocking the concept) it does explore pragmatic
ways to build a movement.
> reality (n.,)
> usually referring to manifest reality or reality-as-experienced, this is a
> word in significant transition due to the advancing probes of science and
> art. It is now recognized as an enactive process and requires distinction
> between its sub-processes before any in-depth discussion so as to avoid
> significant confusion:
> latent reality
> personal reality
> shared reality
>
This is so silly, it baffles me. 3 levels of reality? "Shared
reality." Such a thing does exist. You, Brandon and Hal will percieve
your post as a rational explanation and mine as pure flaming (even
though I discuss issues) while others will percieve things differently.
To a degree you have a shared reality. You guys are lock steppers.
People like talyman and Nik feel common frustrations, but being loyal to
individual visions can't unite to impose such a group reality as you
have. They are also baffled and thrown by your smug denial of their
realities.
But this aside apart there are many "group realities" and your model in
general is the creation of a freshman student.
> surreal (adj., illiterate)
> a vulgar colloquialism popularized as a synonym for "weird" or "bizarre,"
> this is a word with no meaning whatsoever among surrealists, except as a
> certain identifier of the user's carelessness or ignorance. [also: --
> surrealistic, (adj.) -- surrealistically, (adv.)]
>
In other words they are uninterested in the forces of the social
unconscious or how their reality muted into another? In other words
real surrealists (tm) have no use for surrealism in a modern context.
> surrealism (n.,)
> one of the most misused words of our time. Its communicative value is
> limited to attempts to correct misrepresentations of the surrealist project.
> Should always be enclosed in quotation marks to acknowledge its recuperated
> status in popular culture.
>
> surrealist (n.)
> a person who has understood and committed him/herself to the surrealist
> project as it has been theoretically explored, witnessed and collectively
> practiced -- not as a "school" or a "style" or a "club" or a "set of rules"
> but as the intuitive recognition of a fundamental life imperative. A
> surrealist is one who has internalized and _extended_ (not contradicted and
> reversed) this project in freshly discovered fields of investigation as well
> as along existing trajectories toward the marvelous begun by fallen
> colleagues.
>
This is meaningless. But are you claiming aliens are not marvelous?
Incidently above you say surrealism *can't* include religion. Isn't
that a rule? And might not individuals who have internalized this
fundamental life imperative (wow?) internalize it in different ways
because it is after all intuitive?
> surrealist project (n., process)
> the fundamental life imperative among surrealists, revolutionary in scope
> and intent. The surrealist project is a continuous process directed toward
> achieving an enhanced reality -- a (sur)reality -- in which the liberated
> imagination is fully integrated into daily living. Surrealists recognize
> this as a collective and collaborative process requiring a social
> transformation as well as a personal one.
>
Yet you confine your actions to a single group? This Usenet covers a
vast range of social issues? Have you gone out to battle Nazis, to
expound a philosophy, to make surrealism anything more than an esoteric
discussion in one little group read by perhaps a dozen people. Have you
done anything to attract people to this group? Have you made any
attempt to act on society?
You are using grand words to describe a clique.
> truth (n.,)
> a social agreement on particular characteristics or attributes of shared
> reality (the greater the consensus, the more compelling the "truth"). As
> such, it is significantly less interesting than reality. [syn: fact]
If "truth" is as you say, then Nik was correct in his debate with
Brandon and Hal. If surrealism is anything besides a clique, but
instead a loyalty to principles then you should have intervened.
You are a hypocrite.
> "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."
>
So why not truth and not truth?
Religion and not religion?
Brandon was the one stressing logical consistency. If one is consistent
with the above statement it seems necessary to allow the assertions of
Nik.
Dale Houstman
> neu neutopia (n.)
1. The theory that any theory is better than none when it comes to covering
a hole in your brain pan.
2. "neu neu" = "poo poo"
3. gnu gnutopia: a place for dead horses to go when they're through yakking.
DMH
Bill Cleere
>
> This Is the most informative Post I have read on this NG in the three months I have
> been here.
> It is exactly the kind of discussion I had hoped to find originally.
> Instead I found flame wars arguing about who is more of an orthodox surrealist and
> how many surrealists could fit on the head of a pin.
> Silly and dumb humor passing it's self of as "Surrealist work" (this is where I
> admit my guilty participation), and intolerance to any kind of expression that did
> not fit the currently acceptable (yet unwritten) rules led to a state where the
> bulk of the postings where by a very small cadre of people. It was becoming boring
> and lacking fresh stimulus or input from all of the innovative and artistic minds I
> am sure are out there on the net looking for a place to bounce things (in a surreal
> context) around in.
> I am JUST as guilty as the people I am talking about (you know who you are) because
> I participated or because I was silent when I could have done differently, or
> because I egged people on
> for my own amusement. But I now say that I want to change and
> welcome the refreshment.
> I am sorry that my lack of formal education and or intellectual skills prevents my
> contributing much of any meaningful value to this NG , but I would like to keep
> trying (the 100 monkeys on typewriters theory).
> That's about all I have on my chest for the moment, BCNU
> don wheeler-mings aka perceptor
Your quotations have been very apt, and also good in
themselves.
Andrea's post was spot on. I don't know what's
surrealist and what's not, but Usenet posting can be
a Dada act if it's done in the right spirit. And
the most important part of that spirit is:
ANYONE IS WELCOME TO PARTICIPATE.
NO ONE IS TO BE EXCLUDED ON A PRIORI GROUNDS.
It is a Dada act to post without fear, favor, or
expectation of attention or lack of attention.
It is a Dada act to follow up with regard only to
the dynamic of the thread, not caring whether one
has been supported or attacked, or ignored or
acclaimed. It is to live in the moment, so that
one may have a future.
One thing I can tell you, my friend, it's a big
Usenet and a short life.
-- Bill Cleere
Leo Sgouros
barrett john erickson wrote in message ...
>neu (adj.,)
>a contraction of neuter.
>
>senseless gibberish disguised as a psuedo-philosophical vision.
>
>neutered senseless gibberish disguised as psuedo-philosophical vision.
>
>a neutered psuedo-surrealist, or one who promotes a mutilation of
surrealist
>theory in which desire is flattened and the "liberation of the imagination"
>has been deformed into the "manipulation of buttons."
>
>one who proclaims that he/she is entitled to ignore shared reality and
>existing context (historical and current) especially when discussing
matters
>of theory -- particularly surrealist theory. The personalist believes, for
>example, that it is sufficient for him/her to declare some belief or
>position compatible with "surrealism" for it to be so (e.g. religion) and
>that the disagreement (even universal disagreement) of surrealists past and
>present is irrelevant. Consequently, the personalist is often found in a
>defensive posture, hopelessly outnumbered by those he/she claims are trying
>to enforce some orthodoxy, but who are in reality only insisting that they
>have no obligation to accept the personalist's unilateral redefinitions,
and
>will continue to challenge them as incompatible with that theory as it
>already exists.
>
>usually referring to manifest reality or reality-as-experienced, this is a
>word in significant transition due to the advancing probes of science and
>art. It is now recognized as an enactive process and requires distinction
>between its sub-processes before any in-depth discussion so as to avoid
>significant confusion:
> latent reality
> personal reality
> shared reality
>
>a vulgar colloquialism popularized as a synonym for "weird" or "bizarre,"
>this is a word with no meaning whatsoever among surrealists, except as a
>certain identifier of the user's carelessness or ignorance. [also: --
>surrealistic, (adj.) -- surrealistically, (adv.)]
>
>one of the most misused words of our time. Its communicative value is
>limited to attempts to correct misrepresentations of the surrealist
project.
>Should always be enclosed in quotation marks to acknowledge its recuperated
>status in popular culture.
>
>surrealist (n.)
>a person who has understood and committed him/herself to the surrealist
>project as it has been theoretically explored, witnessed and collectively
>practiced -- not as a "school" or a "style" or a "club" or a "set of rules"
>but as the intuitive recognition of a fundamental life imperative. A
>surrealist is one who has internalized and _extended_ (not contradicted and
>reversed) this project in freshly discovered fields of investigation as
well
>as along existing trajectories toward the marvelous begun by fallen
>colleagues.
>
>the fundamental life imperative among surrealists, revolutionary in scope
>and intent. The surrealist project is a continuous process directed toward
>achieving an enhanced reality -- a (sur)reality -- in which the liberated
>imagination is fully integrated into daily living. Surrealists recognize
>this as a collective and collaborative process requiring a social
>transformation as well as a personal one.
>
>a social agreement on particular characteristics or attributes of shared
>reality (the greater the consensus, the more compelling the "truth"). As
>such, it is significantly less interesting than reality. [syn: fact]
>
>
>
>
>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."
>
>
>
>
>Well well well.
Breton at " The Farm" s blue room.
What would make grown people alter the realities of armed men?
The room is built into a hill.
You go in armed and usually drugged.
The walls, the lights, the million dollar sonic hologram and elf
"bone-speaker" distorts you so much when you come out gravity,speech,
perception, everything is all wankled. An event is staged in front of you.
Later, after the anti-dote is fed to you in orange juice{cranberry doesnt
work!}
you learn if you passed.
Next step?
Create your own VIABLE language.
Officer training.
Saviour of normalcy, exposer
Leo Sgouros
What do you think about a place that puts people into manufactured reality
and demands a life or death decision from them?Where the herd mentality is
gauged while a "your patner is a double agent" meme gets sown into your
calcium phosphate?While you all are hoding what you think are loaded guns?
Welcome to The Blue Room.
-for we cannot measure, shivers of pleasure-
Talysman
in amazement, I beheld Andrea Chen <fallin...@earthlink.net>
write in alt.surrealism:
[ answering Barrett's definitions ]
:)Religion is defined as the belief in supernatural powers (it's not
:)necessarily organized religion.)
not really. I go by the social anthropology definition of religion
as a set of public behaviors designed to interpret and define reality.
this comes out of Emile Durkheim's comparative religion studies.
I have not previously mentioned Durkheim or anthropology here, because
hardcore retrosurrealists hate both.
the fundamental nature of religion is that it defines, through myth
and ritual, the various categories that every concept in the universe
"must" belong to, and treats as sacred anything that violates the
boundaries of those categories (they are treated with awe or dread.)
the obvious example is jewish kosher laws. one anthropologist (Mary
Tamm Stewart? I forget her name) did a little study of the kosher
laws and worked out how almost all were based on violations of
categories (frogs aren't kosher because they are a creature that
hops, a movement not mentioned in Genesis chapter 1 (flying, creeping,
and walking; pigs aren't kosher because they are hooved mammals that
don't chew their cud, like other hooved mammals do; etc.)
another example is the dread almost all cultures have felt for
human beings that violate the separation of the living from the
dead (ghosts and vampires are feared supernatural beings.) there
are many other examples (horror expressed towards homosexuals,
taboos on menstruating women (people who bleed but aren't injured,)
the awe/terror surrounding violations of the mental/physical
separation (telepathy,) &c.)
of course, one could redefine "supernatural" (a poorly-defined word
to begin with) as "that which violates natural categories", and
the definition of "religion" would then be correct.
what's more relevant is the bit about *organized* religion. the
surrealists were actually opposed to organized religion (as a form
of oppression,) and merely rejected certain words like "god" and
"religion" because of the "organized religion" taint, not because
of any good reason. it's like the problem India had some time ago
with a species of antelope that was becoming too numerous, causing
ecosystem damage: the government couldn't kill the excess antelope
population because the local name for them included the word for
"cow" -- "antelope-killing" was tainted by a linguistic resemblance
to "cow-killing". the government's answer was to change the word
for "antelope" and let the killing begin. the oldtime surrealists
likewise hated anything that superficially resembled a word or
behavior found in (organized) religion.
but the real problem is that we see Barrett and Brandon and Dale
write things like:
surrealist (n.)
a person who has understood and committed him/herself
to the surrealist project as it has been theoretically
explored, witnessed and collectively practiced
implying -- no, wait, explicitely *stating* -- that a surrealist is
a person who thinks and behaves as past surrealists have thought and
behaved. and yet, Dali was a surrealist -- and a catholic; Malcolm
de Chazal was a surrealist -- who wrote mystically and hermetically,
and started rewriting the Pentateuch from his own viewpoint, and who
was defended by Breton as a surrealist. we even have Barrett and
Dale mentioning this time or that time that a surrealist group kicked
out members who were too mystical -- which is an explicit confession
that some surrealists were mystical.
thus, there is too much internal contradiction here. if Chazal was
a surrealist, then so am I, since I'm way less religious than he was.
I can't accept the idea that I am betraying surrealism by not adopting
atheism, when it is a historical fact that some surrealists weren't
atheists.
:)To a degree you have a shared reality. You guys are lock steppers.
:)People like talyman and Nik feel common frustrations, but being loyal to
:)individual visions can't unite to impose such a group reality as you
:)have. They are also baffled and thrown by your smug denial of their
:)realities.
it's "talysman", btw.
and actually, in my particular case, the argument is not over reality,
although at times it seems Brandon's responses to me imply that I am
saying "I have my view of surrealism, you have yours." I don't agree
completely with Nik's "multiple truths" idea, I only agree with his
statements about one subjective viewpoint ("there is no god") being
no more valid than another subjective viewpoint ("there is a god").
since "god" is not defined in objective terms, we cannot design an
empirical test for the existence of "god" and both statements are thus
meaningless.
my position is that there is, in fact, an objective Truth, but we are
incapable of experiencing it directly, objectively; we always perceive
Truth/reality through the limitations of our senses, and our perceptions
are themselves distorted by our conceptions. Nik says much the same
thing, but he then concludes "so all beliefs are true, for those that
believe them", while I do not. I believe that all beliefs are only
approximations of reality and thus all beliefs are false. (and the
preceding belief is itself only an appoximation of reality, because I
left out tautologies in formal systems, which are always true within
that system.)
no, in *my* case, Brandon took exception to my proposal that people
should practice a different religion every day, and even *invent* new
gods every day, as a tool to attack one's own tendency to believe in
religion. the "every day" is an exaggeration, maybe, but my point
was that no one can throw off the shackles of belief if one doesn't have
an intimate, personal knowledge of the arbitrariness of belief; it's
true that any religion works just as well as any other, but we need to
*feel* this truth, not mouth it like a platitude.
Brandon objected to my "make a new god every day" post as being pro-
religion(!) and unsurrealist(!). Barrett eventually understood my
position, but was still disgruntled about my using the word "god".
I don't remember Dale arguing with me at all; we've always gotten
along OK. I think he must recognize that churning out new gods in
a god-factory can be a threat only to religion.
also, I have always defined "surrealists", myself as "anarchists who
throw art instead of bombs". it's all about liberation of the
imagination and of desire, and opposition to oppression. I can't
believe, as some do, that there should be rules about who can and
cannot be a surrealist, and the fact that some historical surrealists
kicked other surrealists out of their little clubs seems to me absurd
and opposed to the real values of the surrealist project; everytime
Barrett explains what the surrealist project *is*, it seems even
more absurd. those historical ecommunications of "mystics" from
surrealist groups were nothing more than primate politics! baboons
baring their fangs and throwing dung at supposed invaders!
Brandon really likes this primate game. this is why, when he started
arguing about the Church of the SubGenius, I invited him to discuss
it in alt.slack, and later redirected followups. he stopped baring
his teeth when he found himself surrounded by a *different* baboob
pack. I later described the incident as like a group of college-age
kids gathering weekly at a coffee house, with one person dominating
the group through various subtle and not-so-subtle power techniques;
only one day, when the spirited discussions went on longer than
expected, the dominator drops an extra-condescending bon mot just
as a bunch of punk rockers enter the coffee shop, and they hear his
witticism and shout "WHAT THE FUCK IS THAT SUPPOSED TO MEAN?"
it's enough to shake any man's self-confidence.
--
the lost anabaptists pile into the boats of drama.
His Most Feathered Eminence, the Ur-Beatle
Oscar Levant
Perceptor wrote:
> >
> > One thing I can tell you, my friend, it's a big
> > Usenet and a short life.
> >
> > -- Bill Cleere
>
> "The artist is nothing without the gift, but the gift is nothing without
> work. "
> - Emile Zola (1840-1902)
"You can pound and fondle the keys until your fingers bleed and fall off,
but when you're finished the silence will still eat you alive,
just like the friendliest school of sharks on the block."
---Oscar Levant
AndreaBillNiclBrandonxisterbarrettDaleLeo #6
Ktzoah of Pic
> neu (adj.,)
utterly meaningless attempt to pick three letters that will
go together and look cool.
> neutopia (n.)
a sugary fruit beverage popular with trendy teenagers.
> neu neutopia (n.)
artificially sweetened neutopia.
> neu surrealist (n., illiterate)
a "surrealist" who drinks large quantities of neu-neutopia.
> personalist (n.)
one whose personal reality differs significantly from the
shared reality. This term seems usually to be used in a derogatory
tone by those who see themselves as in agreement with orthodoxy.
It is often difficult to tell a "personalist" who has some
genuine (but unpopular) insight from one who is just
being an idiot. Both are notorious sources of usenet flamage.
> reality (n.,)
a hopelessly over-iused term with many definitions that I don't
have time to catalogue. Generally means "the world as I see it",
"the world as I think it should be", "the world as we know it",
or something along those lines.
some very useful terms for talking more specifically about it:
> latent reality
> personal reality
> shared reality
> surreal (adj., illiterate)
> a vulgar colloquialism popularized as a synonym for "weird" or "bizarre,"
another observed usage: "pertaining to/evocative of surrealism". Not
favoured by surrealists.
> surrealism (n.,)
> one of the most misused words of our time. Its communicative value is
> limited to attempts to correct misrepresentations of the surrealist project.
Or: a popular synonym for "the surrealist project". Popular among
those who don't actually know what it is, and among those who do,
but don't care to obfuscate their speech by using other words
simply because this one is so often misused.
> surrealist (n.)
> a person who has understood and committed him/herself to the surrealist
> project as it has been theoretically explored, witnessed and collectively
> practiced -- not as a "school" or a "style" or a "club" or a "set of rules"
> but as the intuitive recognition of a fundamental life imperative. A
> surrealist is one who has internalized and _extended_ (not contradicted and
> reversed) this project in freshly discovered fields of investigation as well
> as along existing trajectories toward the marvelous begun by fallen
> colleagues.
> surrealist project (n., process)
> the fundamental life imperative among surrealists, revolutionary in scope
> and intent. The surrealist project is a continuous process directed toward
> achieving an enhanced reality -- a (sur)reality -- in which the liberated
> imagination is fully integrated into daily living. Surrealists recognize
> this as a collective and collaborative process requiring a social
> transformation as well as a personal one.
> truth (n.,)
a social agreement on particular characteristics or attributes of a shared
reality. The greater the consensus, the more time/effort required to
replace it.
religion (n.)
a "school", "style", "club", "set of rules", or "set of definitions"
used habitually or ritualistically by a group of people in a self-
sustaining way. (eg. "christianity", "buddhism", "science", "surrealism",
"global corporate finance", "nihilism" and just about anything with
an "-ism" on the end of it). Propagated and maintained by a social
tendancy to consensus. Usually makes use of the notion of "truth"
to resist erosion. Often based on a really good idea which may take
decades or centuries to accumulate enough baggage that someone can
come along with the same idea, start a new religion with it, and it
won't be recognized.
holy war (n.)
The conflict resulting when the above-mentioned new religion
becomes popular enough to be noticed by the old one whose ideas
it stole. Or, any two fairly similar religions that happen
to meet. The second most common cause of usenet flame wars,
(after clueless idiots.)
dictionary (n.)
a bunch of definitions, thrown together for reference. Possible
motivations for such a creation: 1) a definitive, authoratative
reference for a language, inclusive of as many common usages as
are practical. 2) a smaller set of definitions, designed to
inform readers of the proper usage of terms relating to one
particular idea/discipline. 3) to provide a useful, quick,
psychological profile of the writer for any spooks that might
be reading. 4) to attempt to steer a usenet debate in a
particular direction. 5) to confuse, and/or bore people.
6) Way too much free time on one's hands (typing helps
scour it off).
_
Nikolaus Maack
AndreaBillNiclBrandonxisterbarrettDaleLeo #6 writes:
> I am sorry that my lack of formal education and or intellectual skills
> prevents my contributing much of any meaningful value to this NG
Good lord. Don't let a lack of formal education stop you. You have
experienced life, and presumably have learned something from these
experiences, and therefore must have something of value to share. Look
around you. The internet is full of people who SHOULD shut the fuck up.
I might be one of them.
They don't shut up. They scream and wave their fists and blame everything
on earth for their suffering. They argue about who is the most exciting
Simpson character. They debate issues like abortion, as though their
opinions are interesting. They have nothing to say and they say it
loudly.
You may as well join in and start screaming at the top of your lungs.
Don't shoot yourself in the foot before you even load your gun.
An education more often than not means jumping through hoops and
performing other easy tricks so that you can be awarded a sheepskin.
There are many ways to learn. You must have picked up something by just
being alive.
My dream is of an internet where people express their personal,
most-private, most fascinating, most confusing experiences without fear of
reprisal. Or without caring what sort of reprisals they get. You know
that for every five people who say you're an idiot, there will be five who
say they completely understand you and agree with every word.
Here, in alt.surrealism, where everyone supposedly believes in an art
theory that demands we express the intimate and ultra-real, there is a
distinct lack of personal revelation. And anyone who does reveal anything
personal tends to be mocked. Everyone holds their cards close to their
chest, trying to come across as sophisticated without revealing too much.
And that's pathetic.
Nik
--
"I say everything well. Nik is an asshole."
--Brandon J. Freels, published author
Brandon J. Freels
Talysman wrote
>and yet, Dali was a surrealist -- and a catholic;
Dali was no longer a Surrealist after 1940. His later religious work is
"Mystic" work. Any bio on Dali will hint to this.
>Malcolm de Chazal was a surrealist
No, he was of Surrealist interest.
>it is a historical fact that some surrealists weren't
>atheists.
Not really. The only two Surrealist to remain Surrealists throughout their
lives (Breton, and Peret) were always athiests. The others were given the
boot when their pious nature showed.
>Brandon objected to my "make a new god every day" post as being pro-
>religion(!) and unsurrealist(!).
This is incorrect. I have no argument with you making a new god everyday. It
is something I would have to look more into.
>I have always defined "surrealists", myself as "anarchists who
>throw art instead of bombs"
And this definition is why you will always be wrong about Surrealism. It is
not about art.
>Brandon really likes this primate game. this is why, when he started
>arguing about the Church of the SubGenius, I invited him to discuss
>it in alt.slack, and later redirected followups.
Again, you wanted to move the argument from its place of origin to a place
where you knew mommy and daddy would be there to help you. Rather than fight
it out at alt.surrealism you had to bring in your SubGenius friends who's
ideas and opinions are of no interest to me.
---BJF
Perceptor
"I do not feel obliged to believe that the same God who has
endowed us with sense, reason, and intellect has intended us to
forgo their use. "
- Galileo Galilei
and my personal favourite:
"There are people in the world so hungry, that God cannot appear to them
except in the form of bread."
- Mahatma Gandhi (1869-1948)
Perceptor
"Give me chastity and continence, but not yet. "
- Saint Augustine (354-430)
"Sometimes a scream is better than a thesis. "
- Ralph Waldo Emerson (1803-1882)
Perceptor
scot...@earthlink.net
It's been raining in Seattle for months, and the paper today says some
kind of fucking record has been broken. And I never bothered to buy
that kind of light bulb that tricks the skin and the body into
thinking its a sunny day out there.
I'd gotten so tired.
But there is snow in the mountains.. YES!!!
And two days ago ... I've got my skis, and my sun glasses, (and my
twirly bird hat that admits quite clearly that this old guy's skill
level is zilch), and I want to scream as I try to put to put one knee
forward and one knee down. ....And it is good to be alive!
And then here I see Barrett say:
"reality ....recognized as an enactive process ...."
and I go: YES!!!
and I see Andrea say of this newsgroup:
"It sits here with the grandest publishing medium in the history of
the world (which is offered free) and rather than figure out how to
take this medium and use it to compete with the social order...."
And I go: YES!!!
And I see your straight talk about this fucking rain that has been
going on here... that's gotten me so god damn tired....
and I go: YES!!! THANK YOU!!!
Its good to be alive!
Andrea Chen
digesting.
Following your example with the Bob Subgenuis parody of religion, I
have crossposted this to a group which may be willing to discuss yours
(and Brandon's) various points.
Andrea Chen
>
> That's about all I have on my chest for the moment, BCNU
> don wheeler-mings aka perceptor
Thankyou for this. In the original neu neutopian experiment many
pieces were missing. One was a habit of personal revelation, of being
human. In this memory tour a number of people have dared this reminding
me of what is (very) important.
Regardless of artistic abilities (and your potential may be awesome),
there is much an individual can do. Simply praising things of value or
if a newcomer comes in and is confronted by Brandon, you may remark that
Brandon is very smart and a valuable contributor to this group, but also
a bit abrasive so not to take it personally.
There are many buttons (including dancing temple maids), but the most
common seem to be (perhaps because they are so obtrusive) the ones which
lock us into loops of flames (a foretaste of hell where heaven is people
learning to watch the patterns in themselves to detach, to remember that
a little heat is useful, but...)
Admitting (public confession in the Usenet mirror) your past mistakes
is so essential! It's odd because so many flames followed me and as a
matter of mantaining reputation I was often cruel; BUT one of the
techniques that gave me power was learning not to get addicted. Some
people could successfully push my buttons, I rarely read them. Instead
I jumped from issue to issue (weaving them together the best I could),
my purpose was to entertain and to play with the wide array of subjects
which interest my mind.
Anyone can do this. And doing what you just did is a valuable
addition.
Thankyou and I apologize that this response is hurried. It didn't come
out the way it should. But you have (at least briefly) added to my
humanity by reminding me that many people are insecure about their
education and ability. And even those with more confidence such as
Talyman, Nik, Stefan and even Brandon have been hurt in deep and
fundamental ways by the reactions of this medium. So have I, but I've
also got more acclaim than most, yet at times my confidence has been
close to shattered and only through statements such as your have I been
reminded of the value of what I attempted.
I wish to thank you and many others (including that nagging mommy in my
mind named Leo who may also be a knight templar (pretending to be CIA)
mind control device inserted up my nose) for the beauty briefly shown in
a place where it seems so dangerous.
Carlos Sanchez Padial
> Talysman wrote
> >and yet, Dali was a surrealist -- and a catholic;
> Dali was no longer a Surrealist after 1940. His later religious work is
> "Mystic" work. Any bio on Dali will hint to this.
> >Malcolm de Chazal was a surrealist
> No, he was of Surrealist interest.
> >it is a historical fact that some surrealists weren't
> >atheists.
> Not really. The only two Surrealist to remain Surrealists throughout their
> lives (Breton, and Peret) were always athiests. The others were given the
> boot when their pious nature showed.
> >Brandon objected to my "make a new god every day" post as being pro-
> >religion(!) and unsurrealist(!).
> This is incorrect. I have no argument with you making a new god everyday. It
> is something I would have to look more into.
> >I have always defined "surrealists", myself as "anarchists who
> >throw art instead of bombs"
> And this definition is why you will always be wrong about Surrealism. It is
> not about art.
> >Brandon really likes this primate game. this is why, when he started
> >arguing about the Church of the SubGenius, I invited him to discuss
> >it in alt.slack, and later redirected followups.
> Again, you wanted to move the argument from its place of origin to a place
> where you knew mommy and daddy would be there to help you. Rather than fight
> it out at alt.surrealism you had to bring in your SubGenius friends who's
> ideas and opinions are of no interest to me.
> ---BJF
Wow. YEs, thats all right, Brandon. I think you are right on all this talk.
Its a good aclaration . I congratulate you.
--
GeT:.------.--.--.------.-----.-----.------.---.:g:T:::::::::
::::\ -,__Y | Y - Y - Y --'| d Y |::e::::::::::
:::__'- \| | | _/ _/ --,:| | '--,:::d:::Ow:
::/_______/\_____/\_| |\_| |_____\\__T |_______\::::R:::N
::::::::::::::::::::|_/:::|_/::::::::::|__/::[Carlos]::::::::
Perceptor
> "You can pound and fondle the keys until your fingers bleed and fall off,
> but when you're finished the silence will still eat you alive,
> just like the friendliest school of sharks on the block."
>
> ---Oscar Levant
"Well-timed silence hath more eloquence than speech. "
- Martin Fraquhar Tupper
Stefan Kapusniak
In talk.religion.misc, Andrea Chen <fallin...@earthlink.net> wrote:
> Following your example with the Bob Subgenuis parody of religion, I
>have crossposted this to a group which may be willing to discuss yours
>(and Brandon's) various points.
I wonder whether there _is_ actually anybody other than
me reading in talk.religion.misc, all those reading this
post in that group please raise your hands, and then
put them back down to your keyboard and post that you're
present [trim the newsgroups line if you do -- I mean it].
>Talysman wrote:
>> in amazement, I beheld Andrea Chen <fallin...@earthlink.net>
>> write in alt.surrealism:
>>
>> [ answering Barrett's definitions ]
>>
>> :)Religion is defined as the belief in supernatural powers (it's not
>> :)necessarily organized religion.)
>>
>> not really. I go by the social anthropology definition of religion
>> as a set of public behaviors designed to interpret and define reality.
>> this comes out of Emile Durkheim's comparative religion studies.
>> I have not previously mentioned Durkheim or anthropology here, because
>> hardcore retrosurrealists hate both.
There's a crossposted thread here from a selected bunch
of skeptic, atheism and archeaology groups were somebody
in response to a query on whether anthropology had
influenced their atheistic views, mentioned that they
had minored in anthropology and went on to assert that
they hadn't know any
There were a few comments about myth, and a quote from
a fortune cookie too. The subject is 'aa anthropology'.
I want a merge thread button. Grrrrr.
I think I'll be a real stinker add those groups to the
crosspost. Be warned.
>> the fundamental nature of religion is that it defines, through myth
>> and ritual, the various categories that every concept in the universe
>> "must" belong to, and treats as sacred anything that violates the
>> boundaries of those categories (they are treated with awe or dread.)
This argument is that it acts as a sort of filter on
both perception and thought? With perceptions that
get through to the adherent that don't fit the filter
either being seen as a lifting of the veil, or
abomination.
I don't think I'm seeing that idea quite right, or
I'm flatly disagreeing, anybody with an anthropological
bent want to help me out here?
You see, it would seem to me that this statement would
apply to pretty much to all learned reactions to
perception -- and the inner self-generated perception
that is thought -- that had been integrated down to
the level of habit/reflex [Andrea's 'buttons' being
the most prominent examples of this] whether of a
religious tenor or otherwise. Granted that much religious
instruction is devoted to the task of internalising the
tenants of that religion in the pupil down at that level,
but I would have thought so is pretty much everything
else in life from our very first breath, even if much
of it is more accidental and haphazard than intentional
instruction.
I think this would tend to make 'Religion' too broad a
concept to very useful.
Also I see a lot of religious ritual, not as part of
a matrix through which the world is viewed, but instead
as means of inducing mysticism in an environment were
it can be tethered and controlled by the social/religious
hierarchy.
For the purposes of this post [don't expect any consistency
from me], I see mysticism and religion as being in
tension. With the mystic experience being the emotional
and perceptual effect of an 'unlearning event' so to
speak. Dynamite a habit/reflex of perception/thought,
high enough up the hierarchy of dependent refexes
['switch memes'?] and you get a cascade effect of
unlearning which would leave that whole area of the
psyche 're-ploughed' and in a state of plascicity ready
for relearning and realignment toward new realities.
Do this far enough up the mental hierarchy and you
could get a realignment that could quite accurately be
described as a 'revelation' or being 'born again'.
The advantages in mysticism for religion become clear,
have your people standing by ready with your doctrine,
as people emerge from a mystic experience and they are
in an ideal state for realignment toward that doctrine.
The dangers are also clear, the work of inculcating
the tenants of the faith could be undone in an
afternoon if a subsquent mystical experience occurs
high enough up chain. Highly proficient mystics tend
to develop into heretics with horrifying regularity.
Religion can be seen then as any system of social control
that attempts to use and control the mystical process,
an 'unlearning effect', to open the individual to
internalising that system of social control.
Surrealism could be seen as an attempt to grasp this
brand in the context of art and social liberation,
rather than the context of social control.
Neu neutopianism, and similar projects, as attempts to
grasp it in the context of usenets nascent cultural
formation.
Under this model, of mysticism as an 'unlearning effect',
it is easy to see why the mystic experience is so pervasive
in human cultures. In times of stress the ability of
the human organism to sweep away once useful, but now,
in the face of changed realities and pressures, damaging
and dangerous habits and reactions even if buried at
a very deep level, would confer great competitive
advantage.
I am aware this all completely off the wall (-;
>> the obvious example is jewish kosher laws. one anthropologist (Mary
>> Tamm Stewart? I forget her name) did a little study of the kosher
>> laws and worked out how almost all were based on violations of
>> categories (frogs aren't kosher because they are a creature that
>> hops, a movement not mentioned in Genesis chapter 1 (flying, creeping,
>> and walking; pigs aren't kosher because they are hooved mammals that
>> don't chew their cud, like other hooved mammals do; etc.)
I would see this more as the natural outcome of a
legalistic approach to doctrine formation...
>> another example is the dread almost all cultures have felt for
>> human beings that violate the separation of the living from the
>> dead (ghosts and vampires are feared supernatural beings.)
[...snip...]
The were-wolf as being a violation of the seperation
between man and beast for instance?
>> what's more relevant is the bit about *organized* religion. the
>> surrealists were actually opposed to organized religion (as a form
>> of oppression,) and merely rejected certain words like "god" and
>> "religion" because of the "organized religion" taint, not because
>> of any good reason.
[...huge snip, antelopes in India, the usual pointless arguments
about who sees who as a Real Surrealist(tm)...]
Remember words _do_ function as (imperfect) carriers of
meaning, if the word "god" or the word "religion" carries
an association with a requirement to adhere to a system
of social control -- which a surrealist would presumably
see as oppressive by its very nature -- then the surrealist
would not want these concepts to 'pollute' the realigned
awareness of those who had undergone a mystical 'unlearning
event' in response to surrealist art and surrealist action.
That would be to defeat the very point of surrealism as a
liberating force.
Of course under your definition of religion, these words
may well not carry these associations. Even under my
definition the word "god" may well not.
>> a
>> although at times it seems Brandon's responses to me imply that I am
>> saying "I have my view of surrealism, you have yours." I don't agree
>> completely with Nik's "multiple truths" idea, I only agree with his
>> statements about one subjective viewpoint ("there is no god") being
>> no more valid than another subjective viewpoint ("there is a god").
>> since "god" is not defined in objective terms, we cannot design an
>> empirical test for the existence of "god" and both statements are thus
>> meaningless.
>>
>> my position is that there is, in fact, an objective Truth, but we are
>> incapable of experiencing it directly, objectively; we always perceive
>> Truth/reality through the limitations of our senses, and our perceptions
>> are themselves distorted by our conceptions. Nik says much the same
>> thing, but he then concludes "so all beliefs are true, for those that
>> believe them", while I do not. I believe that all beliefs are only
>> approximations of reality and thus all beliefs are false. (and the
>> preceding belief is itself only an appoximation of reality, because I
>> left out tautologies in formal systems, which are always true within
>> that system.)
[...snip...]
Well I think I'm with you rather than with Nik on that
one.
-- Kapusniak, Stefan m
elag
It is ridiculous to say that Surrealism is not about art. You could say
that it is not PRIMARILY about art... or not ONLY about art... but to
deny the inextricable link of art and life in Surrealism is at the very
least historically innacurate.
Surrealists used art as propaganda... as a tool for discovery... as a
means to shock people out of their bourgeois mentality. So, Talysman's
anarchists throwing bombs is an accurate (if limited) metaphor for
Surrealism, or at least for certain Surrealists.
Breton built poem-objects and wrote poetry until the end of his life.
He remained Surrealist until the end of his life. He saw that
Surrealism was (and is) about art... Art integrated into life
integrated into art.
ARS LONGA, VITA BREVIS
talysman wrote:
> >I have always defined "surrealists", myself as "anarchists who
> >throw art instead of bombs"
> "Brandon J. Freels" wrote:
> And this definition is why you will always be wrong about Surrealism. It
> is not about art.
scot...@earthlink.net
<fallin...@earthlink.net> wrote:
> being human.
We are human beings. I am a wild animal.
Human beings are more capable of understanding the real meaning in the
smell of a dead dog in the grass than the words on a computer screen
reporting the murder of eight thousand men and boys.
In a natural environment wild animals don't kill each other for fun.
Unnecessary acts of aggression are avoided because it cost energy that
is very hard to come by.
The buttons of wild animals.... color, scent, movement... inform and
construct what the hard realities of a situation will be. There
will be life or there will be death. The belly will be filled or it
will not be. There will be procreation... yes or no. There are no
endless loops. Something really happens.
I am built so my body reacts to color, scent, movement, the taste of
something on my tongue, and the feel of something pressing against my
skin. My dreams demand these things.
I demand you add some kind of scent to your buttons. Or at least
show us your eyes when you type.
Your buttons cause loops, and loops, and loops because they are not
capable of connecting fully with the human body. They enter through a
narrow passage into those parts of the brain that are sexless whores
of the culture and deal with text recognition and language. Then they
spread through the body system like bastard children looking for some
father to hug or kick. But there is no father. There is no resolution
available.
If you do want a real revolution for human beings you will have to
fuck up the language. But if you just use text you will be eaten by
an empty box and when you drop your bombs you will not even hear the
BOOM. ...And that is the direction culture has taken us anyway.
Endless loops of text regarding the deaths of large numbers of people.
And we don't notice any funny smells.
Fascinan
>We are human beings. I am a wild animal.
>
>Human beings are more capable of understanding the real meaning in the
>smell of a dead dog in the grass than the words on a computer screen
>reporting the murder of eight thousand men and boys.
>
>In a natural environment wild animals don't kill each other for fun.
>Unnecessary acts of aggression are avoided because it cost energy that
>is very hard to come by.
>
>The buttons of wild animals.... color, scent, movement... inform and
>construct what the hard realities of a situation will be. There
>will be life or there will be death. The belly will be filled or it
>will not be. There will be procreation... yes or no. There are no
>endless loops. Something really happens.
>
>I am built so my body reacts to color, scent, movement, the taste of
>something on my tongue, and the feel of something pressing against my
>skin. My dreams demand these things.
indeed....well put!
>
>I demand you add some kind of scent to your buttons. Or at least
>show us your eyes when you type.
>
>Your buttons cause loops, and loops, and loops because they are not
>capable of connecting fully with the human body. They enter through a
>narrow passage into those parts of the brain that are sexless whores
>of the culture and deal with text recognition and language. Then they
>spread through the body system like bastard children looking for some
>father to hug or kick. But there is no father. There is no resolution
>available.
>
>If you do want a real revolution for human beings you will have to
>fuck up the language. But if you just use text you will be eaten by
>an empty box and when you drop your bombs you will not even hear the
>BOOM. ...And that is the direction culture has taken us anyway.
>Endless loops of text regarding the deaths of large numbers of people.
>And we don't notice any funny smells.
>
>
My cells have screamed these sentiments before. But alas, they are concurring
with the memory of experience galvanized via text on a screen. Thoughts to
words to action seems a feasible procession.
I don't notice a funny smell; rather I feel a numbing sense of having my soul
deadened by a grotesque, myopic consumerist beastie.
Dale Houstman
Surrealism is about... 5'6"
Surrealism is about... to start its engines
Surrealism is about... ready to eat
Surrealism is about... finished with this chapter.
Surrealism is about... had it.
***
You're not really arguing here: when Brandon says Surrealism is not "about"
art, he's merely saying that Surrealism is bigger than art. Surgery is not
"about"
sutures, it "uses" them. Fire-fightng is not "about" dalmatians. Etc.
I don't think he denies that art exists and that Surrealism is as willing to
use
it as it is to use a cranial separator.
DMH
Brandon J. Freels
necessary, of making use of it like anyone else." (from Declaration of
January 27, 1925, signed by Aragon, Breton, Artaud, Crevel, etc, and found
in Nadaeu's History of Surrealism, p240-1)
Brandon:
I believe this same sort of concept holds true for art as it does for
literature.
Stefan Kapusniak
In alt.pouting.sandwich, scot...@earthlink.net wrote:
>If you do want a real revolution for human beings you will have to
>fuck up the language. But if you just use text you will be eaten by
>an empty box and when you drop your bombs you will not even hear the
>BOOM. ...And that is the direction culture has taken us anyway.
>Endless loops of text regarding the deaths of large numbers of people.
>And we don't notice any funny smells.
EVERYBODY GO OUT AND HUG THE NEAREST WALL.
I'm serious.
-- Kapusniak, Stefan m
Andrea Chen
Pragmatically it doesn't. Surrealism left a body of visual art, but
there is almost nothing in the way of literature (though people stretch
to class various authors including Gertrude Stein as somehow fitting the
type.) As a social movement surrealism was ineffective. It gathered
publicity and became cool for people who loved "art." It was a
fashionable movement, not much else. But it does still appeal to the
imagination and is a button for flows of longings which then get
clustered in the name. Breton may have personally disliked this, but
it's still consistent with aspects of his philosophy.
Incidently Brandon, even assuming that we go along with your statement
that Breton was merely "using" art: why and how does that make the
statement that surrealism threw arts rather than bombs as ridiculous as
you first implied? Can you think of anything that surrealism used to
equal effect besides the raves of trendy reviewers and wealthy people
who just LOVED the parties because they were so uhmm revolutionary.
Brandon J. Freels
Andrea Chen wrote
> Pragmatically it doesn't. Surrealism left a body of visual art, but
>there is almost nothing in the way of literature
Brandon:
Nadja, Magnetic Fields, Liberty or Love, Death to the Pigs, From the Hidden
Storehouse, Paris Peasent, Treatise on Style, The Libertine, etc.
Perceptor
humbly offer my opinion , Most eloquently !
My eyes raced from word to word eagerly seeking the next sentence. It must
be what they call prose when the words are like candy that just tastes TOO
good , or perhaps it is just gluttony on my part.
PS
Eight thousand dead men and boys still can produce a stench from the words
on my monitor even if their only mentioned in passing.
Thank you , don....
Perceptor
> "We have nothing to do with literature; But we are quite capable, when
> necessary, of making use of it like anyone else." (from Declaration of
> January 27, 1925, signed by Aragon, Breton, Artaud, Crevel, etc, and found
> in Nadaeu's History of Surrealism, p240-1)
>
> Brandon:
> I believe this same sort of concept holds true for art as it does for
> literature.
I believe when the Romans used the books in great library of
Alexandria to heat their baths the world suffered an unmeasurable loss, but
"When a man is freezing to death anything is fair game as fire wood"
don wheeler-mings
Talysman
write in alt.surrealism:
:)Talysman wrote
:)>and yet, Dali was a surrealist -- and a catholic;
:)Dali was no longer a Surrealist after 1940. His later religious work is
:)"Mystic" work. Any bio on Dali will hint to this.
however, he was catholic all his life, and therefore certainly
a catholic at the same moment he was a surrealist.
:)>Malcolm de Chazal was a surrealist
:)
:)No, he was of Surrealist interest.
no, according to Breton, he was a surrealist. get your facts straight.
:)>it is a historical fact that some surrealists weren't
:)>atheists.
:)Not really. The only two Surrealist to remain Surrealists throughout their
:)lives (Breton, and Peret) were always athiests. The others were given the
:)boot when their pious nature showed.
do you realize you have just claimed that all true surrealists are
atheists, and admitted that only two people meet that criteria?
your major bitch (Barrett's, too) is that people aren't paying any
attention to what surrealists actually *did*, and yet you commit
the same offense here, picking a minority (two people) and claiming
them to be the standard of surrealism. how can people be "booted"
from surrealism, if it is a matter of what you *do* and not of what
group you *belong to*?
you see, Brandon, you earlier posted "Questions about the Supernatural"
and implied that the question of whether or not there is a soul is
unimportant to surrealism. I took you at your word. I would say it
applies also to the existence of God as well.
WHETHER OR NOT YOU ARE A THEIST OR AN ATHEIST DOESN'T MATTER.
only the actual work of surrealism matters.
[ skipping down a moment ]
:)>I have always defined "surrealists", myself as "anarchists who
:)>throw art instead of bombs"
:)And this definition is why you will always be wrong about Surrealism. It is
:)not about art.
of course it's about art. art means doing something with a deeper
meaning. anyone who claims to be a surrealist and *doesn't do anything*
is a liar.
of course, maybe you are interpretting the word "art" narrowly,
only applying it to the classic arts of drawing, painting, sculpture.
I include literature and dance, plus such surreal acts as throwing
pies at celebrities and french politicians. making and distributing
manifestos is also included, at least the surrealist kind.
what, exactly, do surrealists do that is not art?
you see, Brandon, you are not only insisting on a definition of
surrealism that is *rigid*, but also you claim this definition
is *objective*, that there is a physical test for surrealism.
in contrast, almost everyone else realizes that the definitions
of ideologies of any sort are fuzzy. there are no exact criteria.
people can only be labeled "democrat" or "christian" (to use two
of your previous examples) if they mostly resemble other democrats
or christians, but two specific democrats (or two christians)
might not resemble each other at all. and some people are so
borderline as to be hard to classify.
:)>Brandon objected to my "make a new god every day" post as being pro-
:)>religion(!) and unsurrealist(!).
:)This is incorrect. I have no argument with you making a new god
:)everyday. It is something I would have to look more into.
then look into these three posts. I will grant you that the third
seems non-committal, but the other two are pretty obviously against
the idea.
From: "Brandon J. Freels" <Fre...@ethergate.com>
Subject: MAKE YOUR OWN GODS
Date: 25 Sep 1998 00:00:00 GMT
Message-ID: <6ugaj2$s1c$1...@news.eli.net>
Talysman is a disguisting dirty pig!
>how can you abandon religion? where do you think it comes from?
>you can run from yourself all day, but you will never escape.
Religion comes from crazy tarts like yourself. We are not born believing in
religion.
>if you accept my god, you will be one step behind, because by then
>I will have made up a new one. MAKE YOUR OWN.
I will never accept your gods. I will only laugh at them. Your foolishness
will be part of my study on religious fanatics. I would truely like to hear
about these gods you've created in the past and are creating in the future!
>every morning in neandertal times, men looked everywhere and saw
>a spirit,
STOP LYING! YOU HAVE NO PROOF OF THE ABOVE STATEMENT!
>a god
>is just a metaphor that lives, if only for a short while. when
>the god dies, you have a funeral, and give birth to a new one.
I am against metaphors. Say what you mean.
>and as for the emancipation of the mind: the funny thing is,
>you were never truely unfree until you chose to be so. if the
>gods are unreal, you are a fool to believe they enslave you.
>if they *are* real, then making new gods to fight the old ones
>is no sin.
The gods never enslaved me for they are not real, but the believers of those
unreal gods have tried.
From: "Brandon J. Freels" <Fre...@ethergate.com>
Subject: Answering my own question
Date: 1998/09/24
Do gods really help push towards the emancipation of the mind? The freedom
of man and the mind can only be obtained when we completely abandon all
religion. If you make up a god every morning I will accept it. If you try to
make everyone else believe in that god, I'll chew up your skull with my
loins of steel.
---BJF
From: "Brandon J. Freels" <Fre...@ethergate.com>
Subject: Stupid Stupid Stupid
Date: 27 Sep 1998 00:00:00 GMT
Message-ID: <jjxP1.75$87.11...@news.eli.net>
Talysman's experiences are borderline encounters with the sublime,
marvelous, enigmatic, etc.
As for Talysman's reference to the Greeks I am a bit erfed. Are you speaking
in:
a) Historical sense?
b) Surreal view of history?
c) your own stupid and ignorant interpretion of what you think you know
about in order to support your own view?
I think your speaking in C.
If you were speaking in a historical sense you would realize that we have
not enough information to know where the idea of Zues came from.
If you were speaking in a Surreal view of history your rendition would have
sounded more like this:
because every carcass begins in that same crater. when the Greeks
imagined Zeus riding donkey bolts, it was because they envisioned
some kind of patty cake, a whole mess of the world that devoured
and liquidated them. it was only after this first bonk on the head that
they began to eat the god Zeus with the testicals of Jimbaba.
As for your foolish statement: "this is why I say 'make a new god every
morning'. if you keep giving birth to new gods, you won't have time to kill
them, or anyone else."
You are given birth to nothing. Nothing is being killed. You can't kill
something that doesn't exist.
From now on, if you are going to try and make historical references I would
hope you will do your best to avoid stupidity.
---Brandon
[ end of reposts ]
--
apes await at our atavistic edge.
Talysman
write in alt.surrealism:
:)Finally, we begin to speak to the heart of meaning. And if I may
:)humbly offer my opinion , Most eloquently !
yes, I agree. I saved that one.
Scott's got it on the ball.
I think posting that to Usenet, or printing it on leaflets
and slipping them under doors in the mid of night, or shouting
it out at the mall ... *those* are surreal acts.
--
Give me ambiguity or give me your TV!
deri...@my-dejanews.com
taly...@softhome.net (Talysman) wrote:
> in amazement, I beheld Perceptor <cwhe...@optonline.net>
> write in alt.surrealism:
>
> :)Finally, we begin to speak to the heart of meaning. And if I may
> :)humbly offer my opinion , Most eloquently !
>
> yes, I agree. I saved that one.
> Scott's got it on the ball.
>
> I think posting that to Usenet, or printing it on leaflets
> and slipping them under doors in the mid of night, or shouting
> it out at the mall ... *those* are surreal acts.
>
I wasn't present to hear the thread in question...but I dispute the fact that
posting to Usenet can be construed as an "act." True, Usenet is a part of the
world where beings exchange ideas and, lo, even vitriol with one another, but
I always thought of "act" in terms of actually walking up to complete
strangers and asking if they are alive, or singing loudly on public
transportation, or sitting in lotus position unannounced on a crowded
sidewalk and chanting your mantra for the passers-by. Usenet is surreal
almost by definition, when inhabited by the minds of those who think
sideways.
> --
> Give me ambiguity or give me your TV!
> His Most Feathered Eminence, the Ur-Beatle
>
>
--Viz
Definition of terms is the whole argument.
-----------== Posted via Deja News, The Discussion Network ==----------
http://www.dejanews.com/ Search, Read, Discuss, or Start Your Own
Perceptor
> In article <b0fa2UMJ...@softhome.net>,
> taly...@softhome.net (Talysman) wrote:
> > in amazement, I beheld Perceptor <cwhe...@optonline.net>
> > write in alt.surrealism:
> >
> > :)Finally, we begin to speak to the heart of meaning. And if I may
> > :)humbly offer my opinion , Most eloquently !
> >
> > yes, I agree. I saved that one.
> > Scott's got it on the ball.
> >
> > I think posting that to Usenet, or printing it on leaflets
> > and slipping them under doors in the mid of night, or shouting
> > it out at the mall ... *those* are surreal acts.
> >
>
> I wasn't present to hear the thread in question...
Here is the thread:
Scottyes post--------
loading the busses according to plan/maintaining the equilibrium of
the scene. two variations, both the same at certain level.
1.
A pretense that no one dies (at least on this side of the sea):
One day in the spring when I was nineteen I was working hard to fuck
the traffic up. The cops were shooting tear gas into the park. I
noticed the gas didn't bother me much. I chased the canisters down
and kicked them along like soccer balls. I was good at placing them
under commuter busses. I did my part.
After about ninety minutes I decided I'd be arrested.
I walked about a quarter mile to where the police busses were
waiting. There were about three hundred of us at that place. I sat on
a little rise.
Four cops came carrying a young man. He was kicking at them. He
wasn't cool. I suspected he was insane. The cops started punching him
and he fell to the ground. Then they kicked him.
When he lay quiet the cops left. No one helped the young man. He
hadn't been cool. He wasn't hurt bad. He was a fuck head big time.
The national guard were there loading the police busses. Fuck head's
antics had attracted the attention of one of the guardsmen: a big guy.
When fuck head got up the big guy came and moved him along to one of
the lines for a police bus. Fuck head tried to elbow the big guy.
But the big guy had a club and began hitting him in the back with it.
The big guy went insane and kept hitting fuck head in the back with
the club. The big guy had become some kind of machine and didn't know
how to stop.
Fuck head had stopped resisting and was pathetic now. His head was
down and with every blow his body jerked.
I guessed the big guy didn't like what he was doing, but he'd gone
insane and didn't know how to stop. He was a shit head.
After a while I got sick of shit head. He'd gone insane, but didn't
liked it. I guessed he would let me intervene if he didn't see my
eyes.
I moved to the line and without letting shit head see my face I
pushed myself into the space between he and fuck head. I raised my
right arm and pushed the club to the side. I could feel shithead's
body against my back. I pushed him two steps back and then stood
still. The beating stopped. Shit head then moved away from the line
At the time I thought I'd committed some kind of humanitarian act.
Later it occurred to me that I'd only brought that scene back into
equilibrium. It all left a bad taste in my mouth.
2.
Eight thousand men and boys die:
In 1995 after the Bosnian 'safe area' of Srebrenica fell eight
thousand men and boys were killed. The following excerpt from
'Srebrenica - Record of a War Crime' (Jan Willem Honig and Norbert
Both) provides a small glimpse into what went on for a several week
period in mid July of that year:
...The men were taken to large classrooms. Others were crammed into a
gymnasium. During the day and evening, individuals and small groups
were taken away for interrogations, beatings and selective executions.
The men were ordered to strip to the waist and take off their shoes.
In the classroom, once darkness had set in, the same survivor recalls:
[we] were ordered to run out into the corridor. We were running
barefoot on a floor which was covered in blood. I saw about 20
corpses lying near the front door. They beat us while we climbed into
the trucks with our hands tied behind our backs. I got into the truck
when it was just half full. The Cetniks kept on yelling to load more
and more people into the truck until it was crammed full, and then
they closed the back. They ordered everyone to sit, but we couldn't
because it was so tightly packed with people whose hands were tied
behind their backs. The Cetniks started to shoot at people in order
to make us sit down.
------------------------------------------------------
perceptors reply--
Finally, we begin to speak to the heart of meaning.
And if I may
humbly offer my opinion , Most eloquently !
My eyes raced from word to word eagerly seeking
the next sentence. It must
be what they call prose when the words are like
candy that just tastes TOO
good , or perhaps it is just gluttony on my part.
PS
Eight thousand dead men and boys still can produce
a stench from the words
on my monitor even if their only mentioned in
passing.
Thank you , don....
> but I dispute the fact that
> posting to Usenet can be construed as an "act."
If not an "act" then what?
If not here then Where?
If not now then when?
> True, Usenet is a part of the
> world where beings exchange ideas and, lo, even vitriol with one another, but
> I always thought of "act" in terms of actually walking up to complete
> strangers and asking if they are alive, or singing loudly on public
> transportation, or sitting in lotus position unannounced on a crowded
> sidewalk and chanting your mantra for the passers-by.
One is limited there by the volume of ones voice,
by the number of people in the crowd, oo by the number of people who can pass by
on a given sitting.
> Usenet is surreal
Yes it is. when I write here I must assume that I am talking to myself. But it
always makes me feel better and gives the illusion of hope.
>
> almost by definition, when inhabited by the minds of those who think
> sideways.
>
> > --
> > Give me ambiguity or give me your TV!
> > His Most Feathered Eminence, the Ur-Beatle
> >
> >
>
> --Viz
> Definition of terms is the whole argument.
Yes I agree.
don wheeler-mings
It is in lower case as a expression of humility
in case anyone ever wondered.
SpoonMan
<fallin...@earthlink.net> wrote:
>> Brandon:
>> I believe this same sort of concept holds true for art as it does for
>> literature.
>
>
> Pragmatically it doesn't. Surrealism left a body of visual art, but
>there is almost nothing in the way of literature (though people stretch
oh i dunno. hakim bey definitly takes his word wrapping as an art.
i tryed calling taz poetry but found it to be less about prose.
plus his veiws are pretty much surreal revolutionary
reading has always inspired more mind visuals for me than real visuals
have. the quick input of knoledge run together forming a nice picture
in my mind. if anything it makes me think more than televison or
normal existence. reading brings me to a nice level of conscieousness
wwhere if anything matters thought does.
sensory deprevation(almost the oposite) does the same thing. to
replace my normal mode of existence with a cold jolt of nothing really
gets the mind going. running or hicking aimlessly does wonders, you
get the runners high and get the inner dialog down and focusing on
reality isnt as prevailent as running a scenario of thought in your
mind.
reading hakim bey runs together thoughts of sorcery and subversion
leading the mind into a weird culture of the taz... um incoherant
nevermind...
reading Aldous huxleys heaven and hell is a nice excurtion into the
antipodes and renasance art for anyone wishing to learn about
Mescalito.
there is allot of good literature out there if you are seeking
surrealism within the mind. even if it isnt even about "surrealism"
hopefully much surrealism is acidental and only noticed by the
surrealists. and only made by them half the time.
chaos magick is a nice way to touch apon the over real and the mind
as a malliable concept instead of a strict order of "me".
.
if this be the voyage of "me" then i say to experiment. streatch all
bounds of self governing and let reality slip. all wwe have to loose
is our bubles. i severly doubt any of you will go permenantly
crazy(incapable of taking care of yourself, or becoming dangerous to
yourself or others) because you followed my advice.
~spo0n
deri...@my-dejanews.com
Perceptor <cwhe...@optonline.net> wrote:
> > I wasn't present to hear the thread in question...
>
> Here is the thread:
[snip thread]
This, is seems, has turned out to be one of those occasions where ignorance
of the past creates idiocy in the present. The scales fall from my eyes to
the floor, where I trip on them and sprain my ass. Business as usual, I see.
>
> > but I dispute the fact that
> > posting to Usenet can be construed as an "act."
>
> If not an "act" then what?
> If not here then Where?
> If not now then when?
>
Upon reflection I have to concede the point. My confusion, at core, is over
whether there is indeed a difference between thought and action. I view
Usenet as belonging to the realm of thought, since it exists as a means of
quasi-direct memetic communication between thinking beings. A sort of
nicotene patch for the mind until telepathy becomes workable. Thus anything
existing within the framework of Usenet does not belong on the "active" plane
of the physical world.
> > True, Usenet is a part of the
> > world where beings exchange ideas and, lo, even vitriol with one another, but
> > I always thought of "act" in terms of actually walking up to complete
> > strangers and asking if they are alive, or singing loudly on public
> > transportation, or sitting in lotus position unannounced on a crowded
> > sidewalk and chanting your mantra for the passers-by.
>
> One is limited there by the volume of ones voice,
> by the number of people in the crowd, oo by the number of people who can pass by
> on a given sitting.
>
This is true. But one is limited on Usenet by the textual format, the finite
time frame other people have in which to read one's post, and the relatively
small number of people with the time or inclination to do so. In person,
surreal acts are less easy to ignore.
> > Usenet is surreal
>
> Yes it is. when I write here I must assume that I am talking to myself. But it
> always makes me feel better and gives the illusion of hope.
>
Talking to oneself is regarded, by the astute and under the right
circumstances, as one of the most clinching proofs of sanity.
> > Definition of terms is the whole argument.
>
> Yes I agree.
> don wheeler-mings
> It is in lower case as a expression of humility
> in case anyone ever wondered.
>
I hadn't, but now that you've brought it to my attention I shan't be able to
stop myself henceforth.
--Viz
What you can take generally depends on what you're given.
Perceptor
> In article <366C9C99...@optonline.net>,
> Perceptor <cwhe...@optonline.net> wrote:
>
> > > I wasn't present to hear the thread in question...
> >
> > Here is the thread:
> [snip thread]
>
> This, is seems, has turned out to be one of those occasions where ignorance
> of the past creates idiocy in the present. The scales fall from my eyes to
> the floor, where I trip on them and sprain my ass. Business as usual, I see.
>
> >
> > > but I dispute the fact that
> > > posting to Usenet can be construed as an "act."
> >
> > If not an "act" then what?
> > If not here then Where?
> > If not now then when?
> >
>
> Upon reflection I have to concede the point. My confusion, at core, is over
> whether there is indeed a difference between thought and action. I view
> Usenet as belonging to the realm of thought, since it exists as a means of
> quasi-direct memetic communication between thinking beings. A sort of
> nicotene patch for the mind until telepathy becomes workable. Thus anything
> existing within the framework of Usenet does not belong on the "active" plane
> of the physical world.
>
> > > True, Usenet is a part of the
> > > world where beings exchange ideas and, lo, even vitriol with one another, but
> > > I always thought of "act" in terms of actually walking up to complete
> > > strangers and asking if they are alive, or singing loudly on public
> > > transportation, or sitting in lotus position unannounced on a crowded
> > > sidewalk and chanting your mantra for the passers-by.
> >
> > One is limited there by the volume of ones voice,
> > by the number of people in the crowd, oo by the number of people who can pass by
> > on a given sitting.
> >
>
> This is true. But one is limited on Usenet by the textual format, the finite
> time frame other people have in which to read one's post, and the relatively
> small number of people with the time or inclination to do so. In person,
> surreal acts are less easy to ignore.
>
> > > Usenet is surreal
> >
> > Yes it is. when I write here I must assume that I am talking to myself. But it
> > always makes me feel better and gives the illusion of hope.
> >
>
> Talking to oneself is regarded, by the astute and under the right
> circumstances, as one of the most clinching proofs of sanity.
>
> > > Definition of terms is the whole argument.
> >
> > Yes I agree.
> > don wheeler-mings
> > It is in lower case as a expression of humility
> > in case anyone ever wondered.
> >
>
> I hadn't, but now that you've brought it to my attention I shan't be able to
> stop myself henceforth.
>
> --Viz
Yes , I feel your points in this post are correct and applicable. And, pleasingly
leave enough room
for further embslishment and additional commentary.
> What you can take generally depends on what you're given.
"There are people in the world so hungry, that God
cannot appear to them except in the form of bread."
- Mahatma Gandhi (1869-1948)
Thank you for your time.
don ........