La Révolution surréaliste: Where does it go from Paris?
TS
rEPtilICus
observed by Post-Modern intellectuals (ie. Dali and Postmodernism; the
book) and artistically rendered in the graphics of Paul Laffolay.
john adams
"rEPtilICus" <rrs...@transbay.net> wrote in message news:3D1CA675...@transbay.net...
rEPtilICus
Its actually veiled eroticism, fixed-explosive, and magic-circumstantial
john adams
> Oh,reptil-lect-uals...(yes, a taste for advancing knowlwdge) sounds like some steamy stuff.
>
twokmi-kimali.de
>Would love to see this exhibit. Any idea where it goes from Paris?
Düsseldorf in
Germoney
20.7- 24.9.2002
http://www.kunstsammlung.de/ausstellungen/surrealismus/00.htm
--
Rettet das Faultier!
Weniger Arbeit!Mehr Leben!
Almotasim
regarding the expo, published in "Le Monde", June 28th edition.
(in French)
Surréalisme pas mort, sauf à Beaubourg
L'objectif du mouvementn'était nullement de "participerà l'organisation" d'une sociétéqu'il récusait, mais, inséparablement,de "transformer le monde" (Karl Marx) et de "changer la vie" (Arthur Rimbaud)
L'EXPOSITION "La révolution surréaliste", qui vient de fermer ses portes au Centre Pompidou, a provoqué, comme on pouvait s'y attendre, la méfiance des surréalistes - c'est- à-dire des quelques individus obstinés, jeunes et moins jeunes, qui continuent à se réclamer d'une aventure née en 1924.
Au-delà des limites propres à cette exposition en tant que telle, c'est la tentative même d'enfermer un mouvement à vocation subversive dans les murs de l'institution muséale qui suscite la dissension. Certes, les ½uvres rassemblées sont extraordinaires ; pourtant, clouées l'une après l'autre sur les cimaises de Beaubourg, elles faisaient irrésistiblement penser à des papillons de collection épinglés derrière une vitre : aucune couleur ne manque, mais la vie et le mouvement sont cruellement absents...
A cela s'ajoute la tendance des organisateurs - ou de certains d'entre eux - à évacuer toute dimension révolutionnaire de la "révolution surréaliste" en la réduisant à une entreprise plastique "moderne". Cela est particulièrement frappant dans le dépliant distribué gracieusement aux visiteurs, qui affirme, entre autres : "Naturellement, ces ½uvres ont aujourd'hui quelque peu perdu de leur étrangeté puisque aussi bien les postulats surréalistes ont contribué à fonder notre mode de perception et d'argumentation. En effet les installations, les vidéo-clips, les films, la publicité et autres jongleries interactives d'aujourd'hui seraient impensables sans la contamination de sens et d'image pratiquée jadis par les surréalistes."
Toute référence à l'engagement politique des surréalistes est soigneusement absente de ce document aseptisé, qui se limite, dans un euphémisme dont la platitude est impressionnante, à constater que "le mouvement surréaliste entendait prendre une part active à l'organisation de la société". En fait, comme tout lecteur moyennement attentif des Manifestes du surréalisme le sait, l'objectif du mouvement n'était nullement de "participer à l'organisation" d'une société qu'il récusait, mais, inséparablement, de "transformer le monde" (Karl Marx) et de "changer la vie" (Arthur Rimbaud).
Une bonne partie du dépliant est vouée à l'énumération des "multiples moyens techniques" utilisés par les peintres surréalistes, qui "fondent la légitimité de leur démarche artistique sur de nouvelles techniques". On ne saurait mieux résumer tout ce qui sépare l'esthétisme du surréalisme. En réaction à ce document, certains individus "peu recommandables", dont on peut supputer qu'ils ont des liens avec le groupe de Paris du mouvement surréaliste - c'est-à-dire ceux qui, autour de Vincent Bounoure, ont refusé la dissolution du groupe en 1969 -, se sont livrés à une opération de détournement en bonne et due forme. Ils ont imprimé, à quelques centaines d'exemplaires, et discrètement déposé dans les présentoirs de l'exposition une version non conforme du dépliant, avec les mêmes format, titre et caractères d'imprimerie.
Le nouveau texte prend allégrement le contre-pied du premier. Par exemple : "Quelles que soient les marchandises culturelles et autres jongleries interactives qui se fabriquent aujourd'hui, il est grotesque d'y voir l'aboutissement d'un mouvement révolutionnaire qui n'a jamais défini ses buts suivant l'activité esthétique de ses poètes ou de ses peintres, mais selon l'exigence de liberté et d'imagination subversive que les uns et les autres exalteront aux fins de mettre à bas la domination capitaliste."
Ce document "non officiel", "en contrebande des plates-bandes du couvent", aurait dit Georges Brassens, est agrémenté d'illustrations d'artistes oubliés par l'exposition - tels que Toyen ou Leonora Carrington, emblématiques de l'absence quasi totale du surréalisme tchèque et de la faible présence des femmes - et d'images provocatrices de l'histoire du surréalisme, comme la célèbre photo publiée dans le no 8 (1926) de la revue La Révolution surréaliste : "Notre collaborateur Benjamin Péret insultant un prêtre".
Enfin, le verso du dépliant reproduit un texte du groupe de Paris du mouvement surréaliste, publié en 1993 dans le journal antifasciste Ras l'Front, mais qui semble dater du printemps 2002 : "Des élections récentes l'ont encore démontré : l'extrême droite est durablement installée, tant sur la scène politique (...) que dans la vie quotidienne. (...) Le racisme, la xénophobie, la nostalgie d'un chef providentiel et le culte de l'abominable trinité "travail, famille, patrie" prospèrent sur la négation, entretenue à longueur de médias, de l'utopie et du désir de révolution. La lutte entreprise pour l'éradication définitive du fascisme, et surtout de ce qui le génère, implique d'abord une réappropriation de la dynamique imaginative du corps social, tendue vers la réactivation du mythe libertaire."
Cette bataille des dépliants a eu un troisième épisode. Piqués au vif par les critiques des surréalistes, les organisateurs - ou certains parmi eux - de l'exposition de Beaubourg se sont sentis obligés de revoir leur copie en retirant de la circulation la première version du dépliant. Elle a été remplacée, lors des dernières semaines de l'exposition, par un autre document, bilingue (anglais-français) et nettement plus tonique. En voici quelques extraits : "Jamais, au cours du XXe siècle, une bande de jeunes hommes en colère n'a eu des ambitions si hautes et si vastes : libérer l'homme, libérer l'art. (...) Révolte, révolution, provocation, profanation : voilà les maîtres mots communs à l'ensem-ble des surréalistes. (...) Revues aux contenus révolutionnaires, tracts, scandales permanents, les surréalistes agissent, vitupèrent, dénoncent tour à tour famille, Eglise, patrie, armée et colonialisme."
Certes, à certaines formulations inexactes ou maladroites - "cette exposition révèle en quoi le surréalisme est déjà en phase avec l'art contemporain" - on se rend aisément compte que des aspects essentiels du surréalisme continuent à leur échapper. Mais il est évident que les auteurs de cette seconde version "officielle" ont médité la leçon de la petite provocation-mystification des surréalistes de l'an 2002.
Morale de l'histoire : le surréalisme n'est pas une école littéraire ni une école de peinture ; encore moins, comme l'écrivait la première version du dépliant, citant les critiques du mouvement, "de la littérature en peinture".
Il s'agit plutôt, comme l'avait si bien compris Walter Benjamin dans son essai sur le surréalisme de 1929, d'une illumination profane, inspirée par une idée radicale de la liberté, et visant rien de moins que de "gagner à la révolution les forces de l'ivresse". C'est peut-être la raison pour laquelle - je cite maintenant le second dépliant officiel - "il garde aujourd'hui encore, si l'on accepte d'être attentif, ses vertus déstabilisatrices".
michael löwy est directeur de recherche au CNRS, membre
du groupe de Paris du mouvement surréaliste.
par Michael Löwy
elag
>
> Below is an article about a reaction of the French Paris surrealism group
> regarding the expo, published in "Le Monde", June 28th edition.
>
Here is a bad Babel Fish Translation, In English:
Not died surrealism, except in Beaubourg the objective of the
mouvementn' was by no means of "participer*Ý the
organization" of a soci*©t*©qu' it challenged, but,
inseparably, "to transform the world" (Karl Marx) and "to change the
life" (Arthur Rimbaud) the EXPOSURE "the surrealist
revolution", which has just closed its doors in the Pompidou
Center, caused, as one could expect it, the mistrust of the
surrealist ones - it is with-statement of the some individuals
stubborn persons, young people and less young people, who
continue to claim themselves of an adventure born in
1924. Beyond the specific limits to this exposure as such, it
is the attempt to even lock up a movement with vocation
subversive in the walls of the institution mus*©ale which
causes the dissension. Admittedly, them * uvres gathered is
extraordinary; however, nailed one after the other on the ogee
mouldings of Beaubourg, they irresistibly made think
of butterflies of collection pinned behind a pane: no color
misses, but the life and the movement miss cruelly... With
that the tendency of the organizers is added - or some of them
- to evacuate any revolutionary dimension of the
"surrealist revolution" by reducing it to a plastic company
"modern". That is particularly striking in the folder
distributed gracefully to the visitors, who affirms, inter
alia: "Naturally, these * uvres somewhat lost today of their
strangeness since as well the surrealist postulates
contributed to found our mode of perception and argumentation.
Indeed the installations, the videos clip, the films, the
publicity and other jugglings interactive of today would be
unthinkable without the contamination of direction and image
practised formerly by the surrealist ones." Any
reference to the political engagement of surrealist misses
carefully of this document asepticized, which is limited, in
an euphemism whose flatness is impressive, to note that "the
surrealist movement intended to take an active share
with the organization of the company". In fact, as any fairly
attentive reader of Proclamations of surrealism knows it,
the objective of the movement was not by no means "to take
part in the organization" of a company which it
challenged, but, inseparably, "to transform the world" (Karl
Marx) and "to change the life" (Arthur Rimbaud). A
good part of the folder is dedicated to the enumeration of the
"multiple technical means" used by the surrealist
painters, who "melt the legitimacy of their artistic step on
new techniques". One could not better summarize all that
separates the esthetism from surrealism. In reaction to this
document, certain individuals "not very advisable", which
one can calculate that they have bonds with group of Paris of
movement surrealist - i.e. those which, around Vincent
Bounoure, refused the dissolution of the group in 1969 -,
devoted oneself to an operation of diversion in due form.
They printed, to a few hundreds of specimens, and discreetly
deposited in the display units of the exposure a version
nonin conformity of the folder, with same the format, titrates
and block letters. The new text takes the opposite
course to the first briskly. For example: "Whatever the
cultural goods and other interactive jugglings which are
manufactured today, it is grotesque to see there the result of
a revolutionary movement which never defined its goals
according to the aesthetic activity of its poets or its
painters, but according to the requirement of freedom and
subversive imagination that all and sundry will exalteront for
purposes to put at bottom the capitalist domination."
This "nonofficial" document, "in smuggling of the plat bands
of the convent", would have said George Brassens, is
decorated illustrations of artists forgotten by the exposure -
such as Toyen or Leonora Carrington, emblematic of the
quasi total absence of Czech surrealism and the weak presence
of the women - and of provocative images of the
history of surrealism, like the famous photograph published in
No 8 (1926) of the review the surrealist Revolution: "Our collaborator
Benjamin P*©ret insulting a priest". Lastly, the back of the
folder reproduces a text of the group of Paris of the
surrealist movement, published in 1993 in the newspaper Ras
antifascist the Face, but which seems to date from
spring 2002: "Of the recent elections still showed it: the
extreme line is durably installed, so much on the political
scene (...) that in the everyday life (...) racism, xenophobia,
the nostalgia of a providential head and the worship of
the abominable trinity "work, family, fatherland" thrive on the
negation, maintained with length media, the Utopia
and the desire of revolution. The fight undertaken for the
final eradication of Fascism, and especially of what
generates it, implies initially a reappropriation of the
imaginative dynamics of the social body, tended towards the
reactivation of the libertarian myth." This battle of the
folders had a third episode. Piqu*©s with sharp by criticisms of
surrealist, the organizers - or some among them - exposure of
Beaubourg felt obliged to re-examine their copy by
withdrawing circulation the first version of the folder. It was
replaced, at the time of the last weeks of the exposure,
by another document, bilingual (English-French) and definitely
more tonic. Here are some extracts: "Never, during
the XXe century, a band of young men in anger did not have so
high and so vast ambitions: to release the man, to
release Article (...) Revolt, revolution, provocation,
profanation: here are the Masters words common to ensem-corn
of surrealist (...) Re-examined to the revolutionary contents,
permanent leaflets, scandals, the surrealist ones act,
vituperate, denounce in turn family, Eglise, fatherland, army
and colonialism." Admittedly, to certain inaccurate or
awkward formulations - "this exposure reveals in what
surrealism is already in phase with the contemporary art" -
one easily realizes that essential aspects of surrealism
continue to escape to them. But it is obvious that the authors of
this second "official" version contemplated the lesson of the
small provocation-mystification of surrealist of the year
2002. Morals of the history: surrealism is not a literary
school nor a school of painting; even less, as the first version
of the folder wrote it, quoting the critics of the movement,
"of the literature in painting". It acts rather, like had
included/understood Walter Benjamin in his test so well on the
surrealism of 1929, of a profane illumination,
inspired by a radical idea of freedom, and aiming anything less
than "to gain with the revolution the forces of
intoxication". It is perhaps the reason for which - I quote the
second official folder now - "it keeps today still, if one
agrees to be attentive, its virtues d*©stabilisatrices".
michael l**wy is a director of research at CNRS, member of the
group of Paris Surrealists
Almotasim
>> group regarding the expo, published in "Le Monde", June 28th edition.
>>
> Here is a bad Babel Fish Translation, In English:
Interesting... surrealistically speaking of course.
Almo
rEPtilICus
yourself.(or self individuation). Revolutionaries are seperatitists that cannot
live in the 'real' world. The only ones that can , have a serious support
group.
The fact of the matter is SO WHAT, racism , fascism and sexism. Everybody is
territorial and hierarchical
and live in a multiple reality of contraditions.(perhaps its how 'we' behave
that really matters and not so much how 'we' think)
The only reason I like surrealism is because of the pleasure it gives me.
After reading the book' Dali and Postmodernism' I will try 'Surrealist
Experiences' by the creative Penelope Rosemont.
I will black mark every rhetorical remark to the word REVOLUTION which drives
me crazy every time i
here it.
Another book I bought was Surrealist Games which looked more fun to read and
surely a breath of fresh air after
the above mentioned books--even though they are filled with great one liners.
. I will draw an analogy. Think about this castle with a long protruding
centered narrow water way. On
the left side of the castle is this oil refinery like structure and a long line
of professional people (lawyers, engineers,
etc.) . As the line of people progress to the right side, we see this
procession of children headed for a carnival of
wonders-the right side of the castle IS pictured as a castle.
We need allot more than surrealism to put things into a better perspective.
Someone might say, 'well, one mans meat is another mans poison'.
I also think that the psychologies and political theorists of the past are
getting more and more blurred in regards to
thier ideas. One wants to see a profusion of realities on the cosmic scale but
yet cling to circa 1929 or 1968
Almotasim
Sure, as everything is (but why is revolution in upper case by the way?).
One is always private, there is no public science etc.
> Another book I bought was Surrealist Games which looked more fun to read
> and surely a breath of fresh air
You might find some pleasure in "The meme machine", by Susan Blackmore
(if not read yet!) and in "Multi-agent systems" by Jacques Ferber,
and in "Essai sur le libre arbitre" by Schopenhauer
and in "Les constantes universelles" by Gilles Cohen-Tanoudji.
(or have you read all these?)
... 'cause speaking of liberty is a good thing, but liberty should be
examined first. Or the next revolution (that started in the 70's with the
creation of Unix) will be a new stupid excitement.
Almo
rEPtilICus
In regards to UNIX . Its kind of funny what you said. I personally have UNIX
besides windows. Trinux is a real cool one.I think you mean that unix is not
only free but also empowering
people as well ,for the better or the worse. I'm more interested in what you
mean by stupid excitement, but
perhaps those books you mentioned will explain.
I loved to be challenged in such a way.
Thanks
Almotasim
> In regards to UNIX . Its kind of funny what you said. I personally have
> UNIX besides windows. Trinux is a real cool one.
I didn't know that one.
> I think you mean that unix is not only free but also empowering people as well
Yes exactly. I think Unix helps people dealing with information, hence
getting power.
>for the better or the worse.
In what sense? You mean: power is not always fairly used?
The point in Unix is that its structure fosters (? not sure about the
word, sorry; by the way I'm looking for a (free) online French/English
dictionary) creativity and sharing, hence I believe the power you get
through Unix (economically, politically, philosophically and
artistically) is a good thing for you but also for the others (hence for
you again) as it leads to advanced knowledge, pleasure, collective
intelligence etc. (until which point, I ignore; perhaps there's a reverse
tendance later in the model).
>I'm more interested in what you mean by stupid excitement,
I just mean that it's a good thing to claim for freedom but let's look at the
possibility of freedom first, as Schopenhauer invites us to do.
> but perhaps those books you mentioned will explain.
The most surprising one might be "The meme machine", which describes the
evolution of ideas as a pure cellular automata phenomenon. Scaring and
exciting in the same time.
Almo
barrett john erickson
"Almotasim" <almo...@noos.fr> wrote in message
news:pan.2002.06.30.10....@noos.fr...
> > I think all that REVOLUTION stuff is a hoax.
>
> Sure, as everything is (but why is revolution in upper case by the way?).
> One is always private, there is no public science etc.
not sure what you mean here...
seems to me it might be more accurate to say:
"one is always public, there is no private science."
-- barrett
BLUE FEATHERS se2 (The New World Odor) is now available
(BF#4 will be available in July02)
http://www.MagneticFields.org/blue/
bar...@MagneticFields.org
http://www.MagneticFields.org/
surrealists in minnesota
Sur...@MagneticFields.org
==============================================
"Everything tends to make us believe that there exists a
certain point of the mind at which life and death, the real and
the imagined, past and future, the communicable and the
incommunicable, high and low, cease to be perceived as
contradictions."
...André Breton
==============================================
barrett john erickson
> I think all that REVOLUTION stuff is a hoax.
you think surrealists don't really want a surrealist revolution? they are
merely pretending so as to dupe you into making a fool of yourself?
> The only revolution is yourself.(or self individuation).
a very self-centered thing to say.
> Revolutionaries are seperatitists that cannot live in the 'real' world.
a surrealist demands the transformation of that "real" world into something
more _real_, which is to say: more livable, where everyone's imagination is
free to actively and openly play, conspire, experiment and explore --
individually _and_ collectively. the difference between you and they seems
to be that you demand only a transformation of _your_ imagination so as to
make the "real" world (as it exists now, in all its fragmented horror and
scattered squaller) more palitable to you.
you sound more separatist than any surrealist i know.
> The only ones that can , have a serious support group.
surrealists are all serious in their support of group action.
> The fact of the matter is SO WHAT, racism , fascism and sexism.
you are happy, what else matters? unfortunately, a surrealist could never
accept such purposefully myopic bliss. it is a sickly substitute for the
marvelous.
> Everybody is territorial and hierarchical and live in a multiple reality
> of contraditions.
surrealists consider it their project to resolve such contradictions, to
unify reality, to topple hierarchy and breach boundaries.
surrealists do not believe that puts them against "everybody" and they have
fresh evidence to prove it every week in their meetings.
> (perhaps its how 'we' behave that really matters and not so much
> how 'we' think)
it is indeed!
which is why surrealists take action against racism , fascism and sexism,
and any other forms of beligerant ignorance they encounter.
> The only reason I like surrealism is because of the pleasure it gives me.
this is reason enough to like something. but you don't appear to have
become intimate enough with surrealism yet for it to have pleasured you. it
might be wise to turn on the lights and see who you've actually been with.
> After reading the book' Dali and Postmodernism'
well, this may account for much of the above. Dali is a reknown seducer,
but one who wears two masks.
in the late 1930's Dali embraced the dollar, fame and fascists. in doing
that he betrayed surrealism (metaphorically speaking) and earned the disdain
of surrealists just as his publicity circus was making him popular here in
the USA.
the USA seems to prefer the melting mask of the ex-surrealist clown to the
actual face of surrealism. this isn't so surprising.
> I will try 'Surrealist Experiences' by the creative Penelope Rosemont.
be warned, we suspect (with great confidence) that Penelope would be
horrified by what you've said so far.
> I will black mark every rhetorical remark to the word REVOLUTION which
drives
> me crazy every time i here it.
keep a good supply of those magic markers. you will be using them a lot if
you do read any actual surrealists (as opposed to reading about
surrealists).
it is a good thing that actual revolutions are not so easily expunged.
> Another book I bought was Surrealist Games which looked
> more fun to read and surely a breath of fresh air after the above
> mentioned books--even though they are filled with great one liners.
surrealist games are, for the most part, intended as a group activity -- not
an entertaining read on your own. they are psycho/physical manifestations
of experiments with, and explorations of the basic concepts at the core of
the surrealist revolution. something you have said you wish to avoid.
i hope you actually play some of these games with friends.
> I will draw an analogy.
OK. but for a surrealist, of course, it is not necessary to be able to
draw.
> Think about this castle with a long protruding centered narrow water
> way. On the left side of the castle is this oil refinery like structure
> and a long line of professional people (lawyers, engineers,
> etc.) . As the line of people progress to the right side, we see this
> procession of children headed for a carnival of
> wonders-the right side of the castle IS pictured as a castle.
i think you'll have to draw this a bit more clearly.
you seem to imply that surrealism demands or offers a choice between the
sides of your castle. but a surrealist sees in this castle a dialectic to
be resolved in a synthesis that destroys such artificial oppositions. a
place where even lawyers and engineers are surrealists playing.
although lawyers might have a very different job description.
> We need allot more than surrealism to put things into a better
perspective.
surrealism isn't trying "to put things into a better perspective". the
surrealist revolution wants to transform "things" as they are into the real
experience of _living_ as it could be.
if all you want is a "better perspective" (i.e., to adopt a different
attitude somehow more in tune with "the way things are"), you're actually
looking for a lot _less_ than surrealism and post-modernism may be just the
place for you to find it.
> Someone might say, 'well, one mans meat is another mans poison'.
some might say, "we all need to eat".
surrealists challenge false equations -- meat and poison are not equivalent
when the desire is to eat.
> I also think that the psychologies and political theorists of the past are
> getting more and more blurred in regards to thier ideas.
what does this mean? the ink runs? their speech slurs? your vision is
deteriorating?
this has no bearing on the ideas already expressed.
> One wants to see a profusion of realities on the cosmic scale but
> yet cling to circa 1929 or 1968
why would you want to cling to circa? is this that clown Dali's influence
again?
surrealists want to see a new, more complete reality emerge from our
combined experience. a reality enhanced (sur-reality) by the fully
integrated and fully liberated imagination. this is not a "profusion of
realities", but rather a single reality that emerges from the full, active
and creative participation of all.
barrett john erickson
"barrett john erickson" <bar...@magneticfields.org> wrote in message
news:3d1f514a$0$392$8f4e...@newsreader.goldengate.net...
>
> squaller
> palitable
> beligerant
> reknown
shit that's irritating.
[spellcheck went through the sig file, but then sent the post without
restarting from the top of the message as it usually does.]
oh well...
Almotasim
>>
>> Sure, as everything is (but why is revolution in upper case by the
>> way?). One is always private, there is no public science etc.
>
> not sure what you mean here...
>
> seems to me it might be more accurate to say: "one is always public,
> there is no private science."
Accuracy in which model?
My reference are below.
Cheers
Almo
- John Cassavettes: "All people are really private -- as a writer and a director, you understand
that that's the ground rule: people are private."
[http://people.bu.edu/rcarney/cassoncass/]
- Daniel Dennett "La conscience expliquée" (about the concept of private
science)
[http://www.tufts.edu/~ddennett/ , which is just a short presentation though]
- Gilles Cohen-Tannoudji "Les constantes universelles"
Il me semble possible, sans trahir en quoi que ce soit la pensée de Niels Bohr (1885-1962), de
formuler dans des termes nouveaux l'exigence de la prise en compte
des conditions de l'observation qu'il incluait dans la notion de
phénomène. Je propose d'utiliser la notion
d'<I>horizon</I> qui partage avec le phénomène de Bohr
la propriété d'unir "subjectif" et "objectif". Un horizon est objectif,
puisque s'il n'y avait pas de monde il n'y aurait évidemment
pas d'horizon, mais il est aussi subjectif, puisqu'il dépend
de la position de l'observateur dont il est l'horizon. La ligne
d'horizon sépare le monde en deux parties : celle qui se
trouve du côté de l'observateur, nous pouvons l'appeler
le "monde propre de l'observateur", ou
domaine de l'<I>actualité</I>, celle qui est au-delà de
ce monde propre, ou domaine de la <I>potentialité</I>. La
ligne d'horizon apparaît fictive, virtuelle, immatérielle;
elle n'existe que par rapport à l'observateur. Elle est
inaccessible, car elle fuit toujours; elle est mobile, et son
mouvement obéit à celui de l'observateur. Elle peut se
déplacer à la vitesse de la lumière ou au prix
d'un simple quantum d'action. Pourtant nous disposons à propos
de la ligne d'horizon d'une certitude : nous savons que c'est bien
sur le monde que nous la traçons. Or c'est précisément
sur cette certitude que s'appuie le retournement fondamental opéré
par la théorie quantique : le monde réel est maintenant pensé comme le lieu de toutes
les lignes d'horizon possibles; la théorie quantique
s'avère ainsi être la théorie du mouvement des
lignes d'horizon. Je qualifierai d'"horizontaux"
les concepts quantiques pour signifier qu'ils décrivent non
pas le "monde réel" au sens où
l'on entend d'ordinaire cette expression conformément à
une longue tradition philosophique qui "chosifie"
ou "substantialise" le réel, mais ses
lignes d'horizon.
rEPtilICus
is that no one cares about
your so-called pretentious revolutionary trite. Try living in the real world to
see what people are really
like.
You don't know me well enough to have me considered as self-centered. Self
individuation is your
only struggle if any. Yes yours, and mine. This does not make one selfish.
The surrealist so called revolution is total BS and will not ever take ground.
One should never consider themself a surrealist--simply because its only a
language game.
Don't worry about your brothers and sisters creativity. They don't give a damn
about you.
The people that are really moving progressively towards change do not get any
credit by your ilk
People like Solari. I'm talking about real concrete living conditions and
socialism. Nobody wants
that. When someone comes up with a real plan there are those who will protest.
You must be a well healed upper income dood to write me that crap.
barrett john erickson
> >> > I think all that REVOLUTION stuff is a hoax.
> >>
> >> Sure, as everything is (but why is revolution in upper case by the
> >> way?). One is always private, there is no public science etc.
> >
> > not sure what you mean here...
> >
> > seems to me it might be more accurate to say: "one is always public,
> > there is no private science."
>
> Accuracy in which model?
the model formed by my observations and readings and explorations, etc.
this has evolved into what is essentially the enactive cognition model with
a tweak or two perhaps.
> My reference are below.
>
> - John Cassavettes: "All people are really private -- as a writer and a
director, you understand that that's the ground rule: people are private."
> [http://people.bu.edu/rcarney/cassoncass/]
an interesting filmmaker. but i wouldn't substitute his conclusions for my
own.
> - Daniel Dennett "La conscience expliquée" (about the concept of private
> science)
> [http://www.tufts.edu/~ddennett/ , which is just a short presentation
though]
last time i checked into Dennett, my conclusion was that Varela (from his
early work with Maturana, thru today) is much further along. add his work
to that of Prigogine and a few others relative to self-organizing systems
and one is well on the way toward what might turn out to be a grand unified
model of cognition and evolution all else that actually makes sense and fits
the reality observed and engaged _on all scales_ from cosmic to quantum.
http://plato.acadiau.ca/courses/educ/reid/enactivism/index.html
(for an overview of enactivism)
http://www.ccr.jussieu.fr/varela/
(Varela's site)
http://order.ph.utexas.edu/people/Prigogine.htm
(Prigogine's site)
> - Gilles Cohen-Tannoudji "Les constantes universelles"
> Il me semble possible, sans trahir en quoi que ce soit la pensée de Niels
Bohr (1885-1962),
very sorry, i'm ashamed to admit i still don't read French.
this is how this comes out in POWERTRANSLATOR:
[if you'd take the time to make any necessary corrections i'll be happy to
continue, as it seems there are some points to explore relative to your
original comment...]
> of
> to formulate in the new terms the requirement of the hold in amount
> of conditions of the observation that he/it included in the notion of
> phenomenon. I propose to use the notion
> of horizon that shares with the phenomenon of Bohr
> the property to unite subjective and objective. A horizon is objective,
> since if there was not a world he/it would have there evidently
> not of horizon, but he/it is as subjective, since he/it depends
> of the observer's position of which he/it is the horizon. The line
> horizon separates the world in two parts: the one that himself
> finds the observer's side, we can call him
> the observer's own world, or
> domain of the actuality, the one that is beyond of
> this own world, or domain of the potentiality. The
> line of horizon appears fictional, virtual, immaterial;
> she/it only exists with regard to the observer. She/it is
> inaccessible, because she/it always flees; she/it is mobile, and
his/her/its
> movement obeys to the one of the observer. It can herself/itself
> to displace to the speed of light or the price
> of a simple quantum of action. Yet we arrange by the way
> of the line of horizon of a certainty: we know that it is well
> on the world that we draw it. However it is precisely
> on this certainty that leans the operated fundamental turning
> by theory quantique: the real world is now thought as the place of all
> the possible horizon lines; theory quantique
> proves out to be to be thus the theory of the movement of the
> lines of horizon. I will qualify of horizontal
> concepts quantiqueses to mean that they describe no
> not the real world to the sense where
> one hears consistently of plain this expression to
> a long philosophical tradition that chosifie
> or substantialise the real, but his/her/its
> lines of horizon.
john adams
"rEPtilICus" <rrs...@transbay.net> wrote in message news:3D1E8CFE...@transbay.net...
> I think all that REVOLUTION stuff is a hoax. The only revolution is
> yourself.(or self individuation). Revolutionaries are seperatitists that cannot
> live in the 'real' world. The only ones that can , have a serious support
> group.
I think what reptilucus might mean to say is that revolutionaries are those whiney
individuals who, unhappy with the current state of things, always seem to make it
a point to go rocking the boat and taking action to change them. What a nuissance to
the status quo.
> The fact of the matter is SO WHAT, racism , fascism and sexism. Everybody is
> territorial and hierarchical
> and live in a multiple reality of contraditions.
>(perhaps its how 'we' behave
> that really matters and not so much how 'we' think)
A little too generalizing and inaccurate. But even so, would that make
oppression an acceptable behavior?
> The only reason I like surrealism is because of the pleasure it gives me.
Everyone has their reasons.
john
rEPtilICus
from Amazon
dear fellow surrealist
rEPtilICus
Yeh, they sound allot like religious fanatics who essentially are saying the same thing in an
obnoxious manner.
Your so called rocking the boat is a cultish thing rather than a truely collective one.
Actually I am not unhappy with people rocking the boat. I'm just used to seeing
how hypocritical it has all been. As a union member I also see it there. I see it very
hypocritical amonsgt the minorities (with some reservation of my being against racism).
wrote:
john adams
"rEPtilICus" <rrs...@transbay.net> wrote in message news:3D1FA140...@transbay.net...
What are you talking about rep? What precisely is my so-called rocking the so-called boat?
I'm no cult member nor (habitual atleast) hyprocite. Please point out for me something I may
have missed. And I don't understand the last part of what you said.
john
rEPtilICus
Nothing pertaining to you personally.
rEPtilICus
john adams
"rEPtilICus" <rrs...@transbay.net> wrote in message news:3D1FA987...@transbay.net...
> I am making a broad general statement just like the one you made.
> Nothing pertaining to you personally.
Ok, nothing personally taken. But a cultish rocking the boat is a cultish rocking the boat,
and when I speak of rocking the boat I am speaking of rocking the boat of oppression.
john
john adams
"rEPtilICus" <rrs...@transbay.net> wrote in message news:3D1FAA76...@transbay.net...
> Oh the last part about minorities? Apparently you have not been around. I will let that one be.
No, I haven't been around at all and I don't know which way is up. And I'm sorry I didn't know
what you meant in " I see it very hypocritical amonsgt the minorities". In other words, were
you infering "it" was the "rocking the boat" or "it all". Perhaps it is best left be.
john
rEPtilICus
all this stuff in a very unintellectual mode. More my feelings about things than actually going
into depth.
My interpretations of this surrealist group (as a whole) is that its very one sided even though
intelligent
enough linguistically. I image most people here, with some exceptions, to be young college types
that
are still idealists. I was once one. I still have an open mind about the surreal, but not from the
perspective
of the Cardinal group. I wonder who the pope is amongst the surrealist nowadays.
I believe that Dali should have taken over the group prior to 1938. After Dali was officially
terminated from
the group, I agree he went in some $$$ish mode which was not to my liking. I am also interested in
the
real stuff.
I am one of those who would like to see all that revolutionary BS banished from the surrealist
group. Its
pure 100% rhetoric. The people that are clinging to it are self deluded individuals. Of course that
statement
is not going anywhere here. Perhaps I need to be going to some groups that are more open ended, but
quite frankly I'm stuck with that word surrel (because it best describes myself).
When I personally find things less obnoxious in regards to all your groups revolutionary pretense,
I
can write nicer letters.
john adams
"rEPtilICus" <rrs...@transbay.net> wrote in message news:3D1FB147...@transbay.net...
> You know John, all my messages have been real laid back on my part. I mean to say that I'm writing
> all this stuff in a very unintellectual mode. More my feelings about things than actually going
> into depth.
> My interpretations of this surrealist group (as a whole) is that its very one sided even though
> intelligent
> enough linguistically.
One sided in what way? That it is too much of a "non-Dali surealism"? How unfair :(
>I image most people here, with some exceptions, to be young college types
> that
> are still idealists.
And what is your idea of young college-types like? I think most people actively writing
here are probably out of college already or may never have been in attendance.
>I was once one. I still have an open mind about the surreal, but not from the
> perspective
> of the Cardinal group.
It's nice to see you reserve some space for an open mind. But I wonder if
there is enough open room left to consider that maybe some of your assumptions
are not without flaw.
>I wonder who the pope is amongst the surrealist nowadays.
> I believe that Dali should have taken over the group prior to 1938.
And I believe Mata Hari should have.
>After Dali was officially
> terminated from
> the group, I agree he went in some $$$ish mode which was not to my liking. I am also interested in
> the
> real stuff.
> I am one of those who would like to see all that revolutionary BS banished from the surrealist
> group.
Perhaps you would make an excellent pope in your own right?
>Its
> pure 100% rhetoric.
Goes to show what you know about the "real world". There are plenty of useful tangible
aspects of such writings, of which no one has to take in as gospel, but not everyone
has the wherewithal to realize its pertinence to modern situations or their own personal
lives.
>The people that are clinging to it are self deluded individuals. Of course that
> statement
> is not going anywhere here.
No, I think clinging behavior does indicate a not going anywhere all right.
>Perhaps I need to be going to some groups that are more open ended, but
> quite frankly I'm stuck with that word surrel (because it best describes myself).
How do you mean surreal describes yourself?
> When I personally find things less obnoxious in regards to all your groups revolutionary pretense,
> I
> can write nicer letters.
Write all the not-nice-letters you wish. The irony is that you may be the most pretentious
and not realize it, with all your effrontery and dare I say only liminal understanding of surrealism
from what I've observed.
john
barrett john erickson
> I think you missed all the points I was trying to make. The fact
> of the matter is that no one cares about your so-called pretentious
> revolutionary trite.
well i made no claim to owning the surrealist revolution, trite or
otherwise, and i certainly didn't call it "pretentious". but i also clearly
answered your assertion that "no one cares" about it -- at the very least,
surrealists do (and after all you are posting to alt.surrealism). i know
surrealists care about the surrealist revolution because i know these
surrealists and they have said as much.
so the fact of the matter is that you seem to have made some factual errors
in this matter.
> Try living in the real world to see what people are really like.
i am living, and i am at least as certain of that as you are. and i may
even be more certain than you are that i am doing that in the "real world",
because i've actually spent some time studying the question of how we
determine the "real" and how we come to understand that process.
as for what people are "really like"...
the people i encounter are "really like" my experience of them. i can know
only what i gain from our interaction. anything else is speculation. if
they choose to behave differently around me than they do around others,
well, they are no less real for that and so that too is what they are
"really like".
and to answer the point you were trying to make...
while living in the real world, i have encountered people -- they are called
"surrealists" -- who care very much about the surrealist revolution and that
is what they are really like.
really.
> You don't know me well enough to have me considered as
> self-centered.
i didn't claim to know you. i said your statement was self-centered.
> Self individuation is your only struggle if any. Yes yours, and mine.
you don't know me well enough to tell me what my "only struggle" is, and i
would certainly not let you get away with doing so no matter how well you
did know me.
but i will tell you that "self-individuation" is not high among my
priorities, and is certainly not my "only struggle".
> This does not make one selfish.
perhaps not, but you should know that making the argument that seeking
_only_ self individuation is not selfish is making you sound self-centered.
how could it be otherwise?
> The surrealist so called revolution is total BS and will not ever take
ground.
whether it ever comes to fruition and whether or not it is bullshit are two
different issues. the first is a matter of effecting a transformation of
living, the second is a matter of agreeing on what that sort of
transformation one seeks and whether or not that agreement was made in good
faith.
> One should never consider themself a surrealist--simply because its only a
> language game.
surrealists certainly play games with language, as i am with you, but a
surrealist is no more defined by that game than you are by your self
individuation argument.
to be a surrealist is not a language game to a surrealist.
> Don't worry about your brothers and sisters creativity. They don't give a
damn
> about you.
i don't worry about anyone's creativity.
> The people that are really moving progressively towards change do not get
any
> credit by your ilk
i have no idea what my "ilk" is, but "moving progressively towards change"
sounds a bit too much like the old "working from within to effect change"
syndrome to me. and that only results in a stronger status quo.
did you mean something less "Paul Wellstone"?
> People like Solari.
Pannelli Solari? don't know anything.
sorry i don't speak italian either, and i can't find anything in english.
can you give me a pointer? i'll be happy to have a look and learn
something.
> I'm talking about real concrete living conditions and socialism. Nobody
wants
> that.
again with the "nobody". so you don't really want that either, huh? why
bring it up?
seems to me, when you say stuff like "nobody wants that" what you are really
saying is that too few people want it for it ever to happen. and maybe that
you're a little bitter over that fact? maybe? but if you're commited to
the concept of a surrealist revolution you work toward that end regardless.
because that's what surrealists do. and because surrealists know that it is
that struggle that enriches their living.
and beyond that, as we learn from chaos theory, this is the kind of obstacle
that can be over-turned in a brief instant of bifurcating clarity with very
little effort.
Prigogine/Stengers offer insight:
"From a physicists point of view, this involves a distinction between states
of the system in which all individual initiative is doomed to insignificance
on the one hand, and on the other, bifiurcation regions in which an
individual, an idea, or a new behavior can upset the global state. Even in
those regions, amplification obviously does not occur with just any
individual, idea, or behavior, but only with those that are "dangerous" --
that is, those that can exploit to their advantage the nonlinear relations
gauranteeing the stability fo the preceding regime."
you just have to hit one of those bifurcation regions. a bit of chance.
the right action at the right time in the right place. and the wonderful
thing is, you never know what that right action is, when the right time is
(although i might argue that the right time is usually "now"), or where the
right place is (although i might argue that the right place is usually
"here").
the Situationist International recognized this even before chaos theory
emerged.
i'd venture to say most of today's surrealists understand revolutions this
way as well.
and obviously surrealists are talking about transforming "real concrete
living conditions" -- they want to do more than that, they want to transform
living. what you mean by "socialism" needs to be a bit more clearly
examined, but real socialism also has to do with transforming living, so it
is certainly not incompatible with what surrealists speak of when they speak
of the surrealist revolution, although i'd say that on its own it falls
short.
> When someone comes up with a real plan there are those who will protest.
that should depend on what that "real plan" is shouldn't it? surely you
don't advocate following anyone with a plan?
> You must be a well healed upper income dood to write me that crap.
sorry, more factual errors..
barrett john erickson
barrett
"rEPtilICus" <rrs...@transbay.net> wrote in message
news:3D1FA21A...@transbay.net...
Brandon Freels
"rEPtilICus" wrote
> My interpretations of this surrealist group
Its more like a surrealist community. Really. Mostly.
> I wonder who the pope is amongst the surrealist nowadays.
John Adams.
> I am one of those who would like to see all that revolutionary BS banished
from the surrealist
> group. Its pure 100% rhetoric. The people that are clinging to it are self
deluded individuals.
I'm not sure if your problem is with the perpetual revolution, or the
revolutionary rhetoric? The rhetoric can be a little thick at times, and I
personally get tired of surrealist chest-thumping. I would much rather hear
those surrealist/revolutionaries discuss new paths of exploration, which are
always part of the on-going revolution, the incessant process. In other
words, I would much rather hear or read peoples ideas on how to partake in
the revolution (which can often be very inspiring), rather then hear someone
"praise" the revolution a million times in one essay (although, for some
people that can be just as inspiring).
john adams
"Brandon Freels" <brandon...@aaahawk.com> wrote in message news:afoidr$ji0$1...@news.chatlink.com...
> [heavy snips]
> > I wonder who the pope is amongst the surrealist nowadays.
>
> John Adams.
>
I would just like to report I now officially have a God-complex.
j
john adams
"barrett john erickson" <bar...@magneticfields.org> wrote in message news:3d1fb908$0$406
>
> > People like Solari.
>
> Pannelli Solari? don't know anything.
Or maybe it's Solari The Magician.
http://www.gmrcreations.com/bob/meetbob.htm
j
Nik Maack
Brandon Freels wrote:
> I'm not sure if your problem is with the perpetual revolution, or the
> revolutionary rhetoric? The rhetoric can be a little thick at times, and I
> personally get tired of surrealist chest-thumping.
Me too. It's somewhat depressing to hear a lot of theory and rhetoric,
and very little description of solid actions that can or will be taken.
I would much rather hear an account of what someone DID as opposed to
what someone THINKS. Far too many people spend all their time thinking,
and never acting on those thoughts.
All that said, I've been putting in insane overtime at work, and have
barely had enough time outside the office to feed and clothe myself. Bleh.
All work and no play makes for an onionless phone booth.
barrett john erickson
"john adams" <johnqa...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:w4RT8.375862$cQ3.24813@sccrnsc01...
that could be. maybe he provides magic markers?
or i suppose it might be Frank Solari the musician:
http://www.franksolari.com.br/
i just hope it wasn't a reference to this Solari:
http://www.solari.com/
-- barrett
john adams
That would be kind of scarey.
-j
john adams
"Nik Maack" <nikm...@sympatico.ca> wrote in message news:3D204937...@sympatico.ca...
I went to the dentist today for another exam. Looks like I'll be 5 g's in the hole.
Stopped off for a burger to celebrate on the way home, then played a little guitar.
I think I'm gonna go put away my laundry...
-john
Nik Maack
john adams wrote:
> I went to the dentist today for another exam. Looks like I'll be 5 g's in the hole.
Five g's? What the hell did you do to your teeth? Play them like a
xylophone using a hammer? Hmmm. That sounds like it could be fun.
> Stopped off for a burger to celebrate on the way home, then played a little guitar.
> I think I'm gonna go put away my laundry...
My laundry pile is very high. Tiny men in lederhosen are yodeling at
the peak.
rEPtilICus
Anybody that raises their hand, I say you have had a surreal experience. Perhaps
a bad one, but surreal for sure. And for all the art and poetry and fancy words,
nothing can compare.
In regards to your comments: I can face myself and say, yes I made some mistakes
in my assumptions, but so have we all.
I'm leaving the newsgroups thing shortly--its too addictive.
Yes I'm against the revolution. I'm for self individuation (Jung). I'm against
the revolution because its phony.
Yes I agree that surrealism is more effective when it points to solutions and
possibilities and stop its rhetoric.
rEPtilICus
Anybody that raises their hand, I say you have had a surreal experience. Perhaps
a bad one, but surreal for sure. And for all the art and poetry and fancy words,
nothing can compare.
In regards to your comments: I can face myself and say, yes I made some mistakes
in my assumptions, but so have we all.
I'm leaving the newsgroups thing shortly--its too addictive.
Yes I'm against the revolution. I'm for self individuation (Jung). I'm against
the revolution because its phony.
Yes I agree that surrealism is more effective when it points to solutions and
possibilities and stop its rhetoric.
Nik Maack
rEPtilICus wrote:
> Yes I'm against the revolution. I'm for self individuation (Jung). I'm against
> the revolution because its phony.
I think you're right. At least, I hold that same opinion. It makes
more sense to strive for individual growth and encourage others to do
the same. I don't think that can be called a "revolution". A
revolution seems to imply a group of people all struggling for the same goal.
I can't buy into that. As soon as it's a group struggle, something is
lost. The strength of the thing is diluted as people drag the force of
the group whichever way they can. People make concessions to the group,
the group makes concessions to itself. And the beliefs of the group
become formal, stylized, rules.
I don't trust groups. The goals and beliefs get lost, somehow, and what
becomes important is belonging to the group and being important to the
group. And groups seem to insulate themselves. It all becomes an "us
against the world" point of view. The insiders are elect, the outsiders
somehow lessened.
Not all groups work this way, I suppose, but whenever I find myself in a
collective, I feel these forces all around me. The one or two people
that are the drive. The hangers-on that just don't have anywhere else
to be, don't know what else to do. The ones that undermine those in
power because they want the power. The lazy people who expect the group
to carry them. And me, the observer, sitting on the outskirts, both
drawn and repelled by the whole thing. It's nice to feel a sense of
belonging. At the same time, it feels inbred and sickly and dependent.
I'm sure all of this says far more about my own neurotic personality
than it does about group dynamics.
> Yes I agree that surrealism is more effective when it points to solutions and
> possibilities and stop its rhetoric.
Lots of groups fall into this trap -- discussing rhetoric and theory,
forgetting to do anything. The difficulty almost seems to lie in
language. People want to know what they're doing before they act. In
order to know what they're doing, they have to talk about it with
others. And the words themselves seem inadequate. People get caught up
in defining terms and translating thoughts into words, and each word is
only an approximation of an idea, so no one ever gets what anyone else
is saying...
So the discussion goes on forever. At some point someone has to stand
up and say, "Enough talk!"
So I'll shut up now.
rEPtilICus
One time I was taking this photoshop class and I could feel all this collective
energy
seemingly from everybody around me. It reminded me of some very rare concerts
that I been to in the past. It was like A healing experience. Those king of feelings
don't seem to last and perhaps they are ment to dissipate eventually. But those
experiences were some of the best 'highs' I ever got---and will never experience
them
in the job I work at. I think thats a kind of collective spirit the surrealists may
be trying
to achieve --that union
Damit, you actually straightened me out abit.
Brandon Freels
(and POWER in general). Its dumpster-diving. Its never bathing. Its opposing
money hungry corporations. Its rebelling from social regulations. And
sometimes its just consuming less, or sharing ideas.
Crimethinc put out a book (which I originally avoided like the plague) that
might help you understand what its all about called "Days of War, Nights of
Love" (here's a review:
http://eserver.org/bs/reviews/2001-11-24-8.14AM.html). You can read sections
from the book at www.crimethinc.com/. I don't agree with everything in the
book, but it provides a good intro to Anarchism.
elag
So, the only Revolution was in your washing machine.
Dale Houstman
"elag" <el...@cloud9.net> wrote in message
news:3D212784...@cloud9.net...
Black agitator!
Don't softsoap the masses. Eke them out with Layoff.
dmh
john adams
"rEPtilICus" <rrs...@transbay.net> wrote in message news:3D20F24D...@transbay.net...
These bring up some good points. Groups have their limitations - petty politics,
personality conflicts, sometimes the poor implementation of goals, etc. But the
question is are all groups bad? I don't think so. Being that we are social beings,
it is only natural to want to form associations with others in order to satisfy mutual
needs or concerns. And there are always those instances where we are better
suited to accomplish things with more than one person involved.
And it seems the least successful groups tend to be those which are organized through
a central body, unless we judge success on the merits of more singular goals (like
waging war on other countries, for instance). Hierarchical organization seems neat,
and occasionally serves its purpose, but organizational theory in the business place
now is beginning to realize what others have always been saying. Individuals with
more autonomy are able to accomplish tasks with more quality and efficiency, and
are happier through the process, than under the direct controls of an authorative higher-
up.
I think we need to be careful when we speak of "the revolution", too. I think revolutions
are happening all the time at different levels and no one really owns any coming
revolution. This is perhaps the point. Revolution in the common sense seeks to
upend the controls that wish to restrain individual's autonomy. It isn't a matter of
trying to create other's reality for them through revolution but resisting those who
usurp everyone else's right to personal freedom.
That has to be done through not only action but education - another form of action
I suppose. And I certainly feel discussion is important within and without some
group dynamic, like this one, where we are all free to disagree, not listen, or shut up.
That being said, I'm not really that much of a group person.
john
john adams
Revolutions have to start somewhere. Why not be prepared with clean clothes?
j
john adams
"Nik Maack" <nikm...@sympatico.ca> wrote in message news:3D20BA97...@sympatico.ca...
>
>
> john adams wrote:
> > I went to the dentist today for another exam. Looks like I'll be 5 g's in the hole.
>
> Five g's? What the hell did you do to your teeth? Play them like a
> xylophone using a hammer? Hmmm. That sounds like it could be fun.
Far less cartoonish than that, I'm afraid. I was just born with crooked teeth
and drank one too many cokes as a youth, I guess. Incidentally, this is
the best dentist I've been to. His approach is to incorporate the body
on the greater whole and bring into focus the full biological picture into the
strategy. We were discussing unconcious mechanisms and how [my] canines
are too high and therefore attempt to compensate by grinding down the back
molars at night. And apparently I have body-builder jaw muscles.
> > Stopped off for a burger to celebrate on the way home, then played a little guitar.
> > I think I'm gonna go put away my laundry...
>
> My laundry pile is very high. Tiny men in lederhosen are yodeling at
> the peak.
>
> Nik
> http://www.nikart.com
john
rEPtilICus
Another print out to read.
rEPtilICus
rEPtilICus
I will have to that someone else. Its probably that your
e-mails are more current
rEPtilICus
Almotasim wrote:
> > I will check out those 'reads'.
> > In regards to UNIX . Its kind of funny what you said. I personally have
> > UNIX besides windows. Trinux is a real cool one.
>
> I didn't know that one.
>
> > I think you mean that unix is not only free but also empowering people as well
>
> Yes exactly. I think Unix helps people dealing with information, hence
> getting power.
>
> >for the better or the worse.
>
> In what sense? You mean: power is not always fairly used?
> The point in Unix is that its structure fosters (? not sure about the
> word, sorry; by the way I'm looking for a (free) online French/English
> dictionary) creativity and sharing, hence I believe the power you get
> through Unix (economically, politically, philosophically and
> artistically) is a good thing for you but also for the others (hence for
> you again) as it leads to advanced knowledge, pleasure, collective
> intelligence etc. (until which point, I ignore; perhaps there's a reverse
> tendance later in the model).
>
> >I'm more interested in what you mean by stupid excitement,
>
> I just mean that it's a good thing to claim for freedom but let's look at the
> possibility of freedom first, as Schopenhauer invites us to do.
>
> > but perhaps those books you mentioned will explain.
> The most surprising one might be "The meme machine", which describes the
> evolution of ideas as a pure cellular automata phenomenon. Scaring and
> exciting in the same time.
>
> Almo
barrett john erickson
> Now I'm starting to get embarrassed. Your right it wasn't you.
> I will have to that someone else. Its probably that your
> e-mails are more current
no need for embarrassment. happens all the time in newsgroupland. i just
didn't want to be held responsible by some inefficient reader some time in
the distant future for recommending a book i've never read.
barrett
elag
>
> "Nik Maack" <nikm...@sympatico.ca> wrote in message news:3D20BA97...@sympatico.ca...
> >
> >
> > john adams wrote:
> > > I went to the dentist today for another exam. Looks like I'll be 5 g's in the hole.
> >
> > Five g's? What the hell did you do to your teeth? Play them like a
> > xylophone using a hammer? Hmmm. That sounds like it could be fun.
>
> Far less cartoonish than that, I'm afraid. I was just born with crooked teeth
> and drank one too many cokes as a youth, I guess. Incidentally, this is
> the best dentist I've been to. His approach is to incorporate the body
> on the greater whole and bring into focus the full biological picture into the
> strategy. We were discussing unconcious mechanisms and how [my] canines
> are too high and therefore attempt to compensate by grinding down the back
> molars at night. And apparently I have body-builder jaw muscles.
This might help cover the bill:
elag
Soap is suspiciously bourgeois, and thus counter-revolutionary... but as
long as you keep your guns clean and loaded we won't complain.
barrett john erickson
> I think I'm starting to open up to what your saying. Thanks for the reply.
> Another print out to read.
part of my thinking in our interaction here is this:
i think it would be nice if we tried to make the word "revolution" mean
something again.
at least in a surrealist context (as in the hoped for/worked for "surrealist
revolution"), among those of us who'd like to see the sort of fundamental
reorientation of all aspects of everyday living from the practical to the
possible, the utilitarian to the poetic -- the kind of transformation that
is impossible within the confines of the existing order's corporatism,
nationalism, militarism, deism/theism, and generalized miserablism.
but "The Spectacle" has fully trivialized the term and successfully neutered
it. we recognize this and react viscerally to the word itself, without even
bothering to ask anymore if the usage is justified. the unfortunate
side-effects are 1) the word is used a lot in surrealist texts so unless one
is ready to accept it as sincere, and then try to figure out what sort of
"revolution" they have in mind, understanding these texts is unlikely; and
2) few other words can adequately express the scope of our project
(actually, i don't think _that_ word adequately expresses the full scope of
our project, but it might come close if we managed to wrest it away from the
PR hacks). so some people, considering the term only in its modern
trivialized context, never quite understand how radical the surrealist
project was, is and always has been at its core and why the spayed "art
movement" version, so often encountered today, just isn't the real thing..
early surrealists really did mean REVOLUTION! (in all aspects of everyday
life -- social and individual) when they said it and i think it might be
time _we_ said it when we mean it.
[but being a lazy cowardly sort myself, i need to add quickly that there's
no reason for a surrealist revolution to be violent. in fact, i might even
argue there is no hope for such a revolution in the presence of violence,
because violence is about dominion and control and destruction, not
transformation and liberty. i won't argue that self defense and wars of
physical liberation are not defensible (and they don't have to destroy the
poetic as Subcommandante Marcos has shown), but all it really takes is a
minor event when the time is ripe, a bifurcation, "reversible coherence" and
enough frustrated people to make a difference suddenly wake up to the
reality of their current nightmare -- kinda like what almost happened in
Prague and Paris in the spring of '68 -- and before you know it poetry will
be made by all.]
still, "revolution" is an uncomfortable word to use these days (even if
you're purpose is to make it feel less uncomfortable to use).
barrett john erickson
> It was Paulo Solari the architect for whatever thats worth
ah! i've found him now.
[ http://www.arcosanti.org/arcosanti/faq_paol.html ]
i'll do a bit of reading. thanks.
barrett
john adams
Specifically this looks to be of interest here:
http://www.arcosanti.org/arcosanti/index.html
Suburban sprawl, spreading across the landscape, causes enormous waste, frustration and long-term costs by
depleting land and resources. Dependancy on the automobile intensifies these problems, while increasing
pollution, congestion, and social isolation. Arcosanti hopes to address these issues by building a
three-dimensional, pedestrian-oriented city. Because this plan eliminates suburban sprawl, both the urban and
natural environments should keep their integrity and thrive.
Arcosanti is a prototype: if successful, it will become a model for how the world builds its cities.
In 1970, the Cosanti Foundation began building Arcosanti, an experimental town in the high desert of Arizona,
70 miles north of metropolitan Phoenix . When complete, Arcosanti will house 7000 people, demonstrating ways
to improve urban conditions and lessen our destructive impact on the earth. Its large, compact structures and
large-scale solar greenhouses will occupy only 25 acres of a 4060 acre land preserve, keeping the natural
countryside in close proximity to urban dwellers.
Arcosanti is designed according to the concept of arcology (architecture + ecology), developed by Italian
architect Paolo Soleri. In an arcology, the built and the living interact as organs would in a highly evolved
being. This means many systems work together, with efficient circulation of people and resources, multi-use
buildings, and solar orientation for lighting, heating and cooling.
In this complex, creative environment, apartments, businesses, production, technology, open space, studios,
and educational and cultural events are all accessible, while privacy is paramount in the overall design.
Greenhouses provide gardening space for public and private use, and act as solar collectors for winter heat.
Arcosanti is an educational process. The five week workshop program teaches building techniques and
arcological philosophy, while continuing the city's construction. Volunteers and students come from around the
world. Many are design students, and some receive university credit for the workshop. But a design or
architecture background is not necessary. People of many varied interests and backgrounds are all contributing
their valuable time and skills to the project. Week-long silt sculpture workshops and Elderhostel programs
offer other ways to be involved. At the present stage of construction, Arcosanti consists of various mixed-use
buildings and public spaces constructed by 4000 past Workshop participants.
john
john adams
"elag" <el...@cloud9.net> wrote in message news:3D225D16...@cloud9.net...
Thanks, I'll print that out and bring it in for redeeming next time.
j
Parry
[snips]
> I'm talking about real concrete living conditions and
> socialism. Nobody wants
> that.
If I understand this statement, you're saying "nobody wants
socialism." This is quite incorrect. People in the enriched countries
have socialism and are struggling to keep it, while those in the
impoverished countries want socialism and are smashed down for their
efforts to get it. If you put aside your quest for self-individuation
for a moment and consider the cases of Canada, Europe, Chile,
Nicaragua, Grenada, Haiti, Venezuela, etc. (even the US, where during
the health care debates the majority wanted socialised medicine), it
should be obvious that many or most people want socialism. This is
because socialism can relieve people from enslavement to an
inequitable economic system. Presumably when more radicalized
socialisms are developed, people will be just as reluctant to give up
those new freedoms.
-- Parry
tim s
On Sat, 29 Jun 2002 23:31:51 +0200, Almotasim <almo...@noos.fr>
wrote:
>Below is an article about a reaction of the French Paris surrealism group
>regarding the expo, published in "Le Monde", June 28th edition.
>
>(in French)
>Surréalisme pas mort, sauf à Beaubourg
>L'objectif du mouvementn'était nullement de "participerà l'organisation" d'une sociétéqu'il récusait, mais, inséparablement,de "transformer le monde" (Karl Marx) et de "changer la vie" (Arthur Rimbaud)
>L'EXPOSITION "La révolution surréaliste", qui vient de fermer ses portes au Centre Pompidou, a provoqué, comme on pouvait s'y attendre, la méfiance des surréalistes - c'est- à-dire des quelques individus obstinés, jeunes et moins jeunes, qui continuent à se réclamer d'une aventure née en 1924.
>Au-delà des limites propres à cette exposition en tant que telle, c'est la tentative même d'enfermer un mouvement à vocation subversive dans les murs de l'institution muséale qui suscite la dissension. Certes, les ½uvres rassemblées sont extraordinaires ; pourtant, clouées l'une après l'autre sur les cimaises de Beaubourg, elles faisaient irrésistiblement penser à des papillons de collection épinglés derrière une vitre : aucune couleur ne manque, mais la vie et le mouvement sont cruellement absents...
>A cela s'ajoute la tendance des organisateurs - ou de certains d'entre eux - à évacuer toute dimension révolutionnaire de la "révolution surréaliste" en la réduisant à une entreprise plastique "moderne". Cela est particulièrement frappant dans le dépliant distribué gracieusement aux visiteurs, qui affirme, entre autres : "Naturellement, ces ½uvres ont aujourd'hui quelque peu perdu de leur étrangeté puisque aussi bien les postulats surréalistes ont contribué à fonder notre mode de perception et d'argumentation. En effet les installations, les vidéo-clips, les films, la publicité et autres jongleries interactives d'aujourd'hui seraient impensables sans la contamination de sens et d'image pratiquée jadis par les surréalistes."
>Toute référence à l'engagement politique des surréalistes est soigneusement absente de ce document aseptisé, qui se limite, dans un euphémisme dont la platitude est impressionnante, à constater que "le mouvement surréaliste entendait prendre une part active à l'organisation de la société". En fait, comme tout lecteur moyennement attentif des Manifestes du surréalisme le sait, l'objectif du mouvement n'était nullement de "participer à l'organisation" d'une société qu'il récusait, mais, inséparablement, de "transformer le monde" (Karl Marx) et de "changer la vie" (Arthur Rimbaud).
>Une bonne partie du dépliant est vouée à l'énumération des "multiples moyens techniques" utilisés par les peintres surréalistes, qui "fondent la légitimité de leur démarche artistique sur de nouvelles techniques". On ne saurait mieux résumer tout ce qui sépare l'esthétisme du surréalisme. En réaction à ce document, certains individus "peu recommandables", dont on peut supputer qu'ils ont des liens avec le groupe de Paris du mouvement surréaliste - c'est-à-dire ceux qui, autour de Vincent Bounoure, ont refusé la dissolution du groupe en 1969 -, se sont livrés à une opération de détournement en bonne et due forme. Ils ont imprimé, à quelques centaines d'exemplaires, et discrètement déposé dans les présentoirs de l'exposition une version non conforme du dépliant, avec les mêmes format, titre et caractères d'imprimerie.
>Le nouveau texte prend allégrement le contre-pied du premier. Par exemple : "Quelles que soient les marchandises culturelles et autres jongleries interactives qui se fabriquent aujourd'hui, il est grotesque d'y voir l'aboutissement d'un mouvement révolutionnaire qui n'a jamais défini ses buts suivant l'activité esthétique de ses poètes ou de ses peintres, mais selon l'exigence de liberté et d'imagination subversive que les uns et les autres exalteront aux fins de mettre à bas la domination capitaliste."
>Ce document "non officiel", "en contrebande des plates-bandes du couvent", aurait dit Georges Brassens, est agrémenté d'illustrations d'artistes oubliés par l'exposition - tels que Toyen ou Leonora Carrington, emblématiques de l'absence quasi totale du surréalisme tchèque et de la faible présence des femmes - et d'images provocatrices de l'histoire du surréalisme, comme la célèbre photo publiée dans le no 8 (1926) de la revue La Révolution surréaliste : "Notre collaborateur Benjamin Péret insultant un prêtre".
>Enfin, le verso du dépliant reproduit un texte du groupe de Paris du mouvement surréaliste, publié en 1993 dans le journal antifasciste Ras l'Front, mais qui semble dater du printemps 2002 : "Des élections récentes l'ont encore démontré : l'extrême droite est durablement installée, tant sur la scène politique (...) que dans la vie quotidienne. (...) Le racisme, la xénophobie, la nostalgie d'un chef providentiel et le culte de l'abominable trinité "travail, famille, patrie" prospèrent sur la négation, entretenue à longueur de médias, de l'utopie et du désir de révolution. La lutte entreprise pour l'éradication définitive du fascisme, et surtout de ce qui le génère, implique d'abord une réappropriation de la dynamique imaginative du corps social, tendue vers la réactivation du mythe libertaire."
>Cette bataille des dépliants a eu un troisième épisode. Piqués au vif par les critiques des surréalistes, les organisateurs - ou certains parmi eux - de l'exposition de Beaubourg se sont sentis obligés de revoir leur copie en retirant de la circulation la première version du dépliant. Elle a été remplacée, lors des dernières semaines de l'exposition, par un autre document, bilingue (anglais-français) et nettement plus tonique. En voici quelques extraits : "Jamais, au cours du XXe siècle, une bande de jeunes hommes en colère n'a eu des ambitions si hautes et si vastes : libérer l'homme, libérer l'art. (...) Révolte, révolution, provocation, profanation : voilà les maîtres mots communs à l'ensem-ble des surréalistes. (...) Revues aux contenus révolutionnaires, tracts, scandales permanents, les surréalistes agissent, vitupèrent, dénoncent tour à tour famille, Eglise, patrie, armée et colonialisme."
>Certes, à certaines formulations inexactes ou maladroites - "cette exposition révèle en quoi le surréalisme est déjà en phase avec l'art contemporain" - on se rend aisément compte que des aspects essentiels du surréalisme continuent à leur échapper. Mais il est évident que les auteurs de cette seconde version "officielle" ont médité la leçon de la petite provocation-mystification des surréalistes de l'an 2002.
>Morale de l'histoire : le surréalisme n'est pas une école littéraire ni une école de peinture ; encore moins, comme l'écrivait la première version du dépliant, citant les critiques du mouvement, "de la littérature en peinture".
>Il s'agit plutôt, comme l'avait si bien compris Walter Benjamin dans son essai sur le surréalisme de 1929, d'une illumination profane, inspirée par une idée radicale de la liberté, et visant rien de moins que de "gagner à la révolution les forces de l'ivresse". C'est peut-être la raison pour laquelle - je cite maintenant le second dépliant officiel - "il garde aujourd'hui encore, si l'on accepte d'être attentif, ses vertus déstabilisatrices".
>michael löwy est directeur de recherche au CNRS, membre
>du groupe de Paris du mouvement surréaliste.
> par Michael Löwy