trigger
Aisys
pistol in hand, and firing blindly, as fast as you can pull the trigger,
into the crowd. Anyone who, at least once in his life, has not dreamed of
thus putting an end to the petty system of debasement and cretinization in
effect has a well-defined place in that crowd, with his belly at barrel
level.
Having gained acceptance, Diogenes dressed himself in the robes of a cynic, and
walked about the streets, with what is reported as a "tub" on his head. The tub
was apparently big enough for him to live in, as it also served as a "place of
repose and serenity".
ATTRACTIVE GIRLY MAN SEEKS WILD-SPIRITED TV/TS for adventure & company. I'm
tall, blond & freaky. Into Sci-Fi, animals. (Transgender)
A Barcelona artist living in New York breathes unexpected life into
old-fashioned luscious semiabstraction. The not-quite-identifiable forms
(solid-state fragments of despoiled landscape, bodies, foods) in these big,
spacey canvases hover in a sky blue void as if coping with conditions of zero
gravity. Moix depicts a world of planetary debris blown sky-high, and provides
an apt metaphor for an art world in which painting never quite died: it just
cryogenically keeps circling the stratosphere, waiting in a state of suspended
animation and sometimes being revived.
Status:
Introduced as a garden plant in 1825 when it was considered one of the finer
introductions of the time. It has now spread in much of the British countryside,
especially in the South West - and in Cornwall it is particularly common on road
verges.
Habitat:
Verges and waste places
SELKET
sublight
anus, and farting madly, as fast as you can fart into the crowd.....
subterranean light
http://www.sublight.com/
Fascinan wrote in message <19980922202230...@ng115.aol.com>...
sublight
anus, and farting madly, as fast as you can fart into the crowd.....
subterranean light
http://www.sublight.com
Fascinan wrote in message <19980922202230...@ng115.aol.com>...
>
>>The simplest Surrealist act consists of dashing down into the street,
>>pistol in hand, and firing blindly, as fast as you can pull the trigger,
>>into the crowd.
Fascinan
>The simplest Surrealist act consists of dashing down into the street,
>pistol in hand, and firing blindly, as fast as you can pull the trigger,
>thus putting an end to the petty system of debasement and cretinization in
>effect has a well-defined place in that crowd, with his belly at barrel
>level.
I would severely contest this conception at many levels. Anyone who would
contemplate the murder of others because of their own painful perception of a
system in which all partcipate would garner only my fear and resentment.
Putting an end to something that one has little control over usually ends up in
a messy, quite conterproductive action. One either grudgingly accepts the
system and acclimatizes accordingly, uses intelligence and creativity to shed
light on artistic, passionate, and emotive manifestations of the universe, or
lashes out in a resounding act of frustration.
I would personally think that the latter would result in regret from all
involved, directly and indirectly.
Diogenes found a better way.
Cadmium Flute
On 22 Sep 1998 18:26:34 PDT, elag <el...@concentric.net> wrote, with
insanity in its loins:
>
>
>Fascinan wrote:
>
>> >"The simplest Surrealist act ... pistol in hand... firing blindly...Anyone
>> who... has not dreamed of... has a well-defined place in that crowd"
>
>> I would severely contest this conception ...
>
>> One either grudgingly accepts the
>> system...or lashes out in a resounding act of frustration.
Cadmium Flute
On Tue, 22 Sep 1998 21:38:27 -0500, "sublight" <subl...@sublight.com>
wrote, with insanity in its loins:
>The simplest Surrealist act consists of jumping out a window, trombone up
>anus, and farting madly, as fast as you can fart into the crowd.....
>
>subterranean light
>
>
>Fascinan wrote in message <19980922202230...@ng115.aol.com>...
>>
barrett john erickson
> [requote of "The simplest surrealist act..." omitted for space]
> I would severely contest this conception at many levels. Anyone who would
> [... balance omitted for space]
there are important things to keep in mind when considering this passage:
first, because surrealism is always "of its time" (then and now), we cannot
extract it from the social context.
second, surrealism is a process based in and driven by spontaneous action.
third, surrealism seeks the liberation of the imagination and its
integration into daily living. this is not to escape from reality, but to
_enhance reality_. [a surrealist cannot ignore or be neutral toward the
existing order.]
therefore, by definition, surrealists occupy a revolutionary position
against any social order which represses or constricts the imagination (or,
as is often the case in our time, encourages us to passively withdraw into
artificial worlds created by mega-multi-national corporations).
Breton is saying that the revolutionary stance in favor of the imagination
is at the core of surrealism [even a pre-requisite -- "Yes, I am concerned
to learn whether a person is blessed with violence before asking myself
whether, in that person, violence _compromises_ or _does not compromise_."
--ab].
most importantly, we need to keep in mind that the revolution surrealism
seeks is _creative_ (as opposed to the destructivness of dada).
in its context, Breton's "simplest Surrealist act" passage was not
advocating random destruction (much less a contemplated murder), but
spontaneous rebellion against the banalities of daily life.
this isn't an action originating in a "painful perception of a system in
which all participate" but a rejection of participation. we always have
this option, and its form does not have to be violent. the "_simplest_"
Surrealist act is not necessarily the _best_ surrealist act.
as for Diogenes, i remember little, but it seems to me that cynicism is
much closer to dada and has no place in surrealist explorations.
-- 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
elag
Fascinan wrote:> [requote of "The simplest surrealist act..." omitted for space]
> I would severely contest this conception at many levels. Anyone who would> [... balance omitted for space]
barrett john erickson wrote:
&Always true.
there are important things to keep in mind when considering this passage: first, because surrealism is always "of its time" (then and now), we cannotextract it from the social context.
second, surrealism is a process based in and driven by spontaneous action.
&too true
third, surrealism seeks the liberation of the imagination and its
integration into daily living. this is not to escape from reality, but to
_enhance reality_. [a surrealist cannot ignore or be neutral toward theexisting order.]
therefore, by definition, surrealists occupy a revolutionary position
against any social order which represses or constricts the imagination (or,as is often the case in our time, encourages us to passively withdraw intoartificial worlds created by mega-multi-national corporations).&or academic institutions or our own (U.S.) inimitable gov't.
Breton is saying that the revolutionary stance in favor of the imagination
is at the core of surrealism [even a pre-requisite -- "Yes, I am concerned
to learn whether a person is blessed with violence before asking myself
whether, in that person, violence _compromises_ or _does not compromise_."
--ab].
most importantly, we need to keep in mind that the revolution surrealism
seeks is _creative_ (as opposed to the destructivness of dada).
in its context, Breton's "simplest Surrealist act" passage was not
advocating random destruction (much less a contemplated murder), but
spontaneous rebellion against the banalities of daily life.
"Anyone who, at least once in his life, has not dreamed of
thus putting an end to the petty system of debasement and cretinization in effect has a well-defined place in that crowd, with his belly at barrel level."
...or at least giving us the freedom to accept such thoughts as EMPOWERING.
this isn't an action originating in a "painful perception of a system inwhich all participate" but a rejection of participation. we always have
this option, and its form does not have to be violent. the "_simplest_"
Surrealist act is not necessarily the _best_ surrealist act.
&Cynicism isn't really very close to Dada except in its general rejection of the dominant society... though Cynics and Dadaists generally emit equally strong odors. Anyways the DADAS were too fond of beaujolais, reblochon and cafe creme (in the case of neo-dadas: zima, yodels and double mocha half-caf lattes) to live as simply as Diogenes.
as for Diogenes, i remember little, but it seems to me that cynicism ismuch closer to dada and has no place in surrealist explorations.
SECONDLY: Pope Breton ultimately could not legislate the meanig of surrealism, even in his own time... certainly noone in this age of eclecticism can pontificate on what does and does not have a legitimate place in surrealist explorations.
alt.surrealism doesn't need a Pope... it needs a rope.
barrett john erickson
> > in its context, Breton's "simplest Surrealist act" passage was not
> > advocating random destruction (much less a contemplated murder), but
> > spontaneous rebellion against the banalities of daily life.
>
elag wrote:
> Jawohl, Mein Herr. As I read the passage Breton IS, exactly, advocating
> contemplated murder.
i'm confused as to how you could go through all the points above this,
consider the passage in its context and still come to this conclusion.
please offer some support for your assertion from within the context of the
second manifesto.
> ...or at least giving us the freedom to accept such thoughts as
> EMPOWERING.
this is only a bit less troubling.
> SECONDLY: Pope Breton ultimately could not legislate the meanig of
> surrealism, even in his own time... certainly noone in this age of
> eclecticism can pontificate on what does and does not have a legitimate
> place in surrealist explorations.
>
> alt.surrealism doesn't need a Pope... it needs a rope.
surrealism is not some vague (eclectic) concept open for definition by
anyone (like "post-modernism"). there is a historical record of surrealist
theory and action. surrealist exploration continues. surrealists exist,
past and present. the word _has meaning for surrealists_.
what is needed in alt.surrealism is, at the very least, a desire to avoid
misrepresentations of surrealism and a willingness to correct them when
encountered.
certainly, we should allow no safe haven for popes. but there should also
be no quiet shelter for those who would praise the devil.
Fascinan
>most importantly, we need to keep in mind that the revolution surrealism
>seeks is _creative_ (as opposed to the destructivness of dada).
that was the general reactionary point I was insinuating
>in its context, Breton's "simplest Surrealist act" passage was not
>advocating random destruction (much less a contemplated murder), but
>spontaneous rebellion against the banalities of daily life.
Well, I'm not one for Breton's bandwagon, though there are many things that
could be learned from his life and actions. Again, I agree with the above
point.
>this isn't an action originating in a "painful perception of a system in
>which all participate" but a rejection of participation. we always have
>this option, and its form does not have to be violent. the "_simplest_"
>Surrealist act is not necessarily the _best_ surrealist act.
It is an action that originates in a painful perception of a system. If there
was no friction or something causing one to strike out against or rebel, there
would be no action at all. Shooting randomly into a crowd is, however,
participation or action that is solipsistic in perception, and utterly devoid
of a basic respect for life.
>as for Diogenes, i remember little, but it seems to me that cynicism is
>much closer to dada and has no place in surrealist explorations.
>
Surrealist exploration is a big area....who's to say how to delineate what has
a place and what doesnt? If you abide by historical guidelines, you will never
be able to break free of such self-imposed regulations. The universe is
dynamic, as are the concomittant manifestations and worlds of idea.
Fasci
elag
into the street, pistol in hand, and firing blindly, as fast as you can pull
means:
anarchic violence is a surrealist act, whatever you may actually think of it.
"Anyone who, at least once in his life, has not dreamed of thus putting an end
to the petty system of debasement and cretinization in effect has a
well-defined place in that crowd, with his belly at barrel level."
means:
It is amazing that people accept the world as it is. It is surprising that
every thinking person (read surrealist) doesn't think of doing away
(violently) with those fools (read "the average person") who can't see what I
see.
furthermore, when Breton says:
"...I am concerned to learn whether a person is blessed with violence before
asking myself whether, in that person, violence _compromises_ or _does not
compromise_."
it means to me: Violent thoughts against society are good. Don't act on
them. Channel them into something positive (such as art or politics judging
from Breton's life).
2. -- barrett said:
surrealism is not some vague (eclectic) concept open for definition by anyone
(like "post-modernism"). there is a historical record of surrealist theory
and action. surrealist exploration continues. surrealists exist, past and
present. the word _has meaning for surrealists_. what is needed in
alt.surrealism is, at the very least, a desire to avoid misrepresentations of
surrealism and a willingness to correct them when encountered.
certainly, we should allow no safe haven for popes. but there should alsobe
no quiet shelter for those who would praise the devil.
Breton said:
". . . Heraclitus is surrealist in dialectic. . . .
Swift is surrealist in malice.
Sade is surrealist in sadism. . . .
Baudelaire is surrealist in morals.
Rimbaud is surrealist in life and elsewhere. . . .
Carroll is surrealist in nonsense. . . .
Picasso is surrealist in cubism. . . .
Etc.... but not always.
it would seem that even Breton's definition of Surrealism is not as rigid as
yours. None of these people were members of the Surrealist group. Neither
were (contemporaries) Cocteau, Bataille and Celine though the works of each
could be considered surrealist in the sense of the broader art-historical
trend. As far as I'm concerned surrealism doesn't have to be considered only
as a historical movement lasting from 1919-1939 which was presided over by
Breton. It is a philosophy which is still with us... it is elastic as are all
philosophies... I use it as I desire...
Bretons definition:
SURREALISM, n. Pure psychic automatism, by which it is
intended to express, verbally, in writing, or by other means, the
real process of thought. Thought's dictation, in the absence of
all control exercised by the reason and outside all aesthetic or
moral preoccupations.
Anything that fits this definition is Surrealist. Perhaps in future we should
differentiate between "Surrealism" the movement entombed in history, and
"surrealism" which is (essentially) whatever we want it to be...
It just takes so much energy...
I think I'll melt back into the visual realm...
De Mortuis Nil Nisi Bonum
elag
barrett john erickson wrote:
As I read the passage Breton IS, exactly, advocating
> > contemplated murder.
>
> i'm confused as to how you could go through all the points above this,
> consider the passage in its context and still come to this conclusion.
>
> please offer some support for your assertion from within the context of the
> second manifesto.
>
> > ...or at least giving us the freedom to accept such thoughts as
> > EMPOWERING.
>
barrett john erickson
>
> 1. as I see it, saying "The simplest Surrealist act consists of dashing down
> into the street, pistol in hand, and firing blindly, as fast as you can pull
> the trigger, into the crowd. "
> means:
> anarchic violence is a surrealist act, whatever you may actually think of it.
the reason i responded to the first post, and then to yours, was that this
passage was 1) misquoted, and 2) taken out of context and that _out of
context_ it could mean just what you contend. but placed _in context_ it
has a more specific meaning.
if you simply choose to ignore the context, i can't stop you, but in doing
so, you forfeit your standing in any argument about its meaning.
> [...]
> Breton said:
> ". . . Heraclitus is surrealist in dialectic. . . .
> Swift is surrealist in malice.
> Sade is surrealist in sadism. . . .
> Baudelaire is surrealist in morals.
> Rimbaud is surrealist in life and elsewhere. . . .
>
> Carroll is surrealist in nonsense. . . .
> Picasso is surrealist in cubism. . . .
> Etc.... but not always.
>
> it would seem that even Breton's definition of Surrealism is not as rigid as
> yours. None of these people were members of the Surrealist group.
again, context is important if you're going to argue what a text means:
properly framed, Breton was merely offering some historical examples of
congruence with what he was now declaring "Surrealist" themes, attitudes
and practices "if one is to judge them superficially only by their
results." these were _narrowed specifically_ in each case with the clear
implication -- later stated -- that these people were not "always
Surrealists".
to say, for example, that "Hugo is Surrealist when he isn't stupid" is
clearly not the same as saying "Hugo is a Surrealist."
even so, Breton found it necessary to point out later that he wouldn't have
included "Poe...in adventure" had he known the stories featuring
sympathetic depictions of police at the time -- considering that sufficient
cause to disqualify Poe from even limited congruence with surrealism.
but this is not important.
>As far as I'm concerned surrealism doesn't have to be considered only
> as a historical movement lasting from 1919-1939 which was presided over by
> Breton. It is a philosophy which is still with us... it is elastic as are all
> philosophies... I use it as I desire...
the point is just that: surrealists are "still with us." surrealism has
current context and meaning.
so, as with the "simplest Surrealist act" quotation, you can use the word
"as [you] desire" -- no one can stop you -- but if you ignore this context,
you forfeit your right to argue its meaning.
>
> Bretons definition:
>
> SURREALISM, n. Pure psychic automatism, by which it is
> intended to express, verbally, in writing, or by other means, the
> real process of thought. Thought's dictation, in the absence of
> all control exercised by the reason and outside all aesthetic or
> moral preoccupations.
>
> Anything that fits this definition is Surrealist. Perhaps in future we should
> differentiate between "Surrealism" the movement entombed in history, and
> "surrealism" which is (essentially) whatever we want it to be...
now who's being rigid?
most surrealists, including Breton, recognized the inadequacies of that
(1924) definition -- the dead end of relying exclusively on _pure_
automatism -- long ago.
surrealism is always "of its time".
my journey began with that definition and allowed what i consider a better
one to be recognized in the on-going (continuous) evolution of surrealist
themes -- particularly since the 60's -- when viewed in _my_ time.
barrett john erickson
>
> >this isn't an action originating in a "painful perception of a system in
> >which all participate" but a rejection of participation. we always have
> >this option, and its form does not have to be violent. the "_simplest_"
> >Surrealist act is not necessarily the _best_ surrealist act.
>
> It is an action that originates in a painful perception of a system. If there
> was no friction or something causing one to strike out against or rebel, there
> would be no action at all. Shooting randomly into a crowd is, however,
> participation or action that is solipsistic in perception, and utterly devoid
> of a basic respect for life.
i really don't want to quibble about this, but...
the difference is subtle but important, i believe. the act described by
Breton is more direct, sponteneous and limited in its scope than what your
words seem to permit (although i allow this may be my reading rather than
your intent) -- not a broad reaction to a "perception of a system" but a
spontaneous physical rejection of an immediate social imperative.
> >as for Diogenes, i remember little, but it seems to me that cynicism is
> >much closer to dada and has no place in surrealist explorations.
> >
>
> Surrealist exploration is a big area....who's to say how to delineate what has
> a place and what doesnt? If you abide by historical guidelines, you will never
> be able to break free of such self-imposed regulations. The universe is
> dynamic, as are the concomittant manifestations and worlds of idea.
surrealist exploration certainly does cover much ground. and i wouldn't
presume to attempt definitive setting of the _ultimate_ borders of such an
open process. however, there are areas which have always been deemed
counter-surrealist by surrealists. and there are also many clearly
identifiable _directions_ to surrealist explorations. the break with dada
and many surrealist texts, for example, clearly establish the general
exploratory direction of enhancing reality via the liberated imagination
(as opposed to less ambitious attempts to simply undermine or disrupt the
status quo).
[when i said "it seems to me" relative to cynicism, i was trying to
reinforce that this was my personal conclusion based both on this
distinction and on the observed diversion of paths tread by cynics towards
apathy vs. the engaged paths tread by surrealists.]
elag
Dear Barrett:
I understand what you're saying, but I suppose I'll have to dig up a copy of the
Manifestos before I say another word. My memory of these texts is w/o doubt
imperfect.
carpe diem, quam minimum credula postero,
elag
barrett john erickson
>[...]
> Agreed... Surrealism is like Tao to me in the sense that it is "The Way".
but (it should be obvious) this does not mean that all "Ways" are
surrealist.
> It is a personal way of life.
>Anything as subconsious as surrealism would by nature *have*
> to adhere to the more personal than to the rhetoric of a man that has been dead
> for decades now.
surrealism isn't about turning inward and escaping into the "subconscious"
where you can try to create your own isolated reality in which you can
redefine other people (e.g., surrealists) at will.
from the beginning, the earliest surrealist experiments were an effort to
_liberate the imagination from the "subconscious"_ and integrate it into
the daily experience of an _enhanced reality_.
reality is the _shared context_ for our actions.
> I understand what Breton says (er.. said) and I agree with some
> of it and some I don't. I take what's relevent to me and what resonates with what
> I feel is right just like all things/ideas/people/etc. that I come into contact
> with. To adhere to the surrealist manifestos in a strict sense (or any
> Bretonism for that matter) seems to me the antithesis of surrealism... Actually it
> smacks of fundamentalist religion to me and I'll have no truck with that...
adherence to, or rejection of manifestoes is not the issue here, it's
simply a matter of recognizing that there _already is_ a "surrealism" and
there _already are_ "surrealists". the terms are in use and no longer open
to a meaningful redefinition which ignores this context.
you can unilaterally decide to redefine an "orange" as "a leather wrapped
sphere used in the game of 'base'" if you want, i don't care. but when i
ask for an "orange" i'll get what i wanted: something i can make flavorful
and nourishing juice from. when you ask for an "orange" you'll get
something that won't survive the first foul ball.
Talysman
write in alt.surrealism:
"as for Diogenes, i remember little, but it seems to me that cynicism is
"much closer to dada and has no place in surrealist explorations.
Bear a hammer with thee always, and knock down any
gate or edifice on which is written: "Thus far shalt
thou pass, and no farther go."
--- Clark Ashton Smith
Mr. Erickson,
your interpretation of Breton's crowd-shooting comment seems
accurate, but you are the epitome of everything Breton was
railing against...
that which places shackles on emotion or imagination or the human
spirit has no place in surrealism.
think what you want.
dream what you want.
feel what you want.
and let others do likewise.
--
His Most Feathered Eminence, the Ur-Beatle
Fascinan
it is a bit clearer to me now, yes.
Well said Barrett
Paul Kinsler
> that which places shackles on emotion or imagination or the human
> spirit has no place in surrealism.
But cannot the unexpected placing of shackles also be surreal?
Saying "shackles have no place in surrealism" shackles surrealism
just as much as the shackles themselves do.
--
#Paul.
------------------------------+soluble fish+------------------------------
Inst Microwaves & Photonics, University of Leeds, UK. (ph) +44 113 2332089
"You people, you do not see the grandeur in the wind and stone and stars,
in the blood and fire and iron - but paint only the flowers."
barrett john erickson
> [...]
> Mr. Erickson,
> your interpretation of Breton's crowd-shooting comment seems
> accurate, but you are the epitome of everything Breton was
> railing against...
>
> that which places shackles on emotion or imagination or the human
> spirit has no place in surrealism.
obviously, either i haven't communicated my position clearly enough for
you, or perhaps you are making unwarranted assumptions and extrapolations.
i don't much care what a dead man might have thought about my statements
(much less what you think a dead man might have thought about my
statements) but i do accept responsibility for them. so if you want to
discuss the above, please explain how you arrived at these conclusions.
i'll attempt to clarify and we can proceed from there.
if not, please, go ahead ...
> think what you want.
> dream what you want.
> feel what you want.
but if you speak what you want about surrealism, be prepared to defend it.
xister
barrett john erickson wrote:
> xister wrote:
>
> >[...]
>
> > Agreed... Surrealism is like Tao to me in the sense that it is "The Way".
>
> but (it should be obvious) this does not mean that all "Ways" are
> surrealist.
Granted... I'm speaking of surrealism on a personal level here. But- this raises an
important question, namely: Who would be the first to be so presumptuous to define
modern surrealism for a group (i.e. alt.surr)?
>
>
> > It is a personal way of life.
> >Anything as subconsious as surrealism would by nature *have*
> > to adhere to the more personal than to the rhetoric of a man that has been dead
> > for decades now.
>
> surrealism isn't about turning inward and escaping into the "subconscious"
I didn't mean to imply that it was(but it helps immensely in the creation of art tho,
surrealist or otherwise).
> where you can try to create your own isolated reality in which you can
> redefine other people (e.g., surrealists) at will.
we (as human beings) are in an isolated reality (our own- that is: one reality per
person) and only have an agreement between our fellow humans as to what is real. I'm
assuming (so correct me if I'm wrong) that's what you want to do with modern surrealism?
Agree to modern terms of surrealism? Or stay within the confines of the old?
>
>
> from the beginning, the earliest surrealist experiments were an effort to
> _liberate the imagination from the "subconscious"_ and integrate it into
> the daily experience of an _enhanced reality_.
I have done this to a certian piont and still do, but to integrate it and share it with
someone else, well..... That I have only been able do through art (as far as i know).
> reality is the _shared context_ for our actions.
> adherence to, or rejection of manifestoes is not the issue here, it's
> simply a matter of recognizing that there _already is_ a "surrealism" and
> there _already are_ "surrealists".
Yes, and they are all surreal in their own way. They don't all adhere to a certain,
exact definition of the word.
> the terms are in use and no longer open
> to a meaningful redefinition which ignores this context.
How academic...Why not? Again, that's like a fundamentalist coming up to me and saying
(pointing at a bible): This is god's word, it's not open to definition anymore because
it's already been defined, it's already been stated as to what's what, and it can't be
changed. That is only one person's view- granted, my view is only one person's view
also, so the question is asked: who's right in defining surrealism- you? me? I would not
be one to force my view of surrealism on anyone(I only defend it here)- so why are you
so quick to do so?
>
>
> you can unilaterally decide to redefine an "orange" as "a leather wrapped
> sphere used in the game of 'base'" if you want, i don't care. but when i
> ask for an "orange" i'll get what i wanted: something i can make flavorful
> and nourishing juice from. when you ask for an "orange" you'll get
> something that won't survive the first foul ball.
Then I'll keep asking for different objects until one does... Who knows, in the long run
I might come up with something even better than orange juice. I want the freedom (as a
surrealist) to be able to define what I want the way I want to. So what if we all define
a baseball (read: surrealism) in different terms? I think that the game would be much
more interesting/messy/fun/educational if everyone brought what they thought should be
hit with the bat (or a salami for that matter) than everyone agreeing that we all use
the same old leather ball every time. So what if someone wants to throw a watermelon
instead- I say let them! I'd be up to the challenge to try to hit it. Granted- certian
rules should apply to surrealism, but I think that they should be broad and always
(every moment of the day) open to redefinition and reinterperation, so that surrealism
may grow with the people who change and grow and ultimately define *it*...
Defining surrealism in *any* narrow sense is a dangerous and restrictive thing that I
feel is only detrimental to the creative process and stunts the growth of surrealism
itself. Who's to say that surrealism shouldn't break out of the classic definition, or
any definition for that matter? That is revolution... Andre Breton and all of the old
school surrealists are dead. Let them rest in peace. All we as modern surrealists can do
is take the knowledge they left to us and and make something new (through our own
interpretations) with what we've gleaned from it. If it doesn't fit with the classic
Andre Breton definition of surrealism, then so be it...
--
Reply (sans hyphen) to the x-i...@earthlink.net
Things are going to slide, slide in all directions
Won't be nothin' you can measure anymore
The Blizzard of the world has crossed the threshold
and it's overturned the order of the soul...
When they said, "Repent!" I wondered what they meant.
I've seen the future brother, it is murder...
-LEONARD COHEN-
xister
> > it would seem that even Breton's definition of Surrealism is not as rigid as
> > yours. None of these people were members of the Surrealist group.
>
> again, context is important if you're going to argue what a text means:
means to whom?
>
>
> properly framed,
properly framed according to whos standards/interpertations/definitions?
> Breton was merely offering some historical examples of
> congruence with what
> *he*
> was
> declaring
> "Surrealist" themes, attitudes
> and practices "if one is to judge them superficially only by their
> results." these were _narrowed specifically_ in each case with the clear
> implication -- later stated -- that these people were not "always
> Surrealists".
>
>
> to say, for example, that "Hugo is Surrealist when he isn't stupid" is
> clearly not the same as saying "Hugo is a Surrealist."
Breton was surrealist when he wasn't busy defining surrealism.
>
>
> even so, Breton found it necessary to point out later that he wouldn't have
> included "Poe...in adventure" had he known the stories featuring
> sympathetic depictions of police at the time -- considering that sufficient
> cause to disqualify Poe from even limited congruence with surrealism.
>
> but this is not important.
>
> >As far as I'm concerned surrealism doesn't have to be considered only
> > as a historical movement lasting from 1919-1939 which was presided over by
> > Breton. It is a philosophy which is still with us... it is elastic as are all
> > philosophies... I use it as I desire...
>
> the point is just that: surrealists are "still with us." surrealism has
> current context and meaning.
>
> so, as with the "simplest Surrealist act" quotation, you can use the word
> "as [you] desire" -- no one can stop you -- but if you ignore this context,
> you forfeit your right to argue its meaning.
by whos standards!?!?who is the definer of this meaning!?!?!? YOU!!!!!! Not me,
everyone else I cannot speak for.
>
>
> >
> > Bretons definition:
> >
> > SURREALISM, n. Pure psychic automatism, by which it is
> > intended to express, verbally, in writing, or by other means, the
> > real process of thought. Thought's dictation, in the absence of
> > all control exercised by the reason and outside all aesthetic or
> > moral preoccupations.
> >
> > Anything that fits this definition is Surrealist. Perhaps in future we should
> > differentiate between "Surrealism" the movement entombed in history, and
> > "surrealism" which is (essentially) whatever we want it to be...
>
> now who's being rigid?
How in the world (or otherwise) can you glean rigidity from that statement?
>
>
> most surrealists, including Breton, recognized the inadequacies of that
> (1924) definition -- the dead end of relying exclusively on _pure_
> automatism -- long ago.
>
> surrealism is always "of its time".
...and Breton's time has come and gone...
>
>
> my journey began with that definition and allowed what i consider a better
> one to be recognized in the on-going (continuous) evolution of surrealist
> themes -- particularly since the 60's -- when viewed in _my_ time.
Right....for *you*, but not for me.... Are you going to tell me that I'm not a
surrealist now?
Dale Houstman
as I see it, saying "The simplest Surrealist act consists of dashing down
into the street, pistol in hand, and firing blindly, as fast as you can pull
the trigger, into the crowd. "
means:
anarchic violence is a surrealist act, whatever you may actually think of it.
Precisely! I don't know how anyone could say
that Breton was necessarily
advocating violence here (although it has it's place:
usually in the home between Mom
and Dad and the kids: Violence isn't a family value?),
since as a French intellectual
he never committed a "simple" act in his life, it was
all convolutions. It's not much
different from saying the "simplest chair" is the ground.
This isn't an adevertisement
for EarthSeats: Take a Load Off On Mother Nature...
Dale H
"Anyone who, at least once in his life, has not dreamed of thus putting an end
to the petty system of debasement and cretinization in effect has a
well-defined place in that crowd, with his belly at barrel level."
means:
It is amazing that people accept the world as it is. It is surprising that
every thinking person (read surrealist) doesn't think of doing away
(violently) with those fools (read "the average person") who can't see what I
see.
furthermore, when Breton says:
"...I am concerned to learn whether a person is blessed with violence before
asking myself whether, in that person, violence _compromises_ or _does not
compromise_."
it means to me: Violent thoughts against society are good. Don't act on
them. Channel them into something positive (such as art or politics judging
from Breton's life).
2. -- barrett said:
surrealism is not some vague (eclectic) concept open for definition by anyone
(like "post-modernism"). there is a historical record of surrealist theory
and action. surrealist exploration continues. surrealists exist, past and
present. the word _has meaning for surrealists_. what is needed in
alt.surrealism is, at the very least, a desire to avoid misrepresentations of
surrealism and a willingness to correct them when encountered.
certainly, we should allow no safe haven for popes. but there should alsobe
no quiet shelter for those who would praise the devil.
Breton said:
". . . Heraclitus is surrealist in dialectic. . . .
Swift is surrealist in malice.
Sade is surrealist in sadism. . . .
Baudelaire is surrealist in morals.
Rimbaud is surrealist in life and elsewhere. . . .
Carroll is surrealist in nonsense. . . .
Picasso is surrealist in cubism. . . .
Etc.... but not always.
it would seem that even Breton's definition of Surrealism is not as rigid as
yours. None of these people were members of the Surrealist group. Neither
were (contemporaries) Cocteau, Bataille and Celine though the works of each
could be considered surrealist in the sense of the broader art-historical
trend. As far as I'm concerned surrealism doesn't have to be considered only
as a historical movement lasting from 1919-1939 which was presided over by
Breton. It is a philosophy which is still with us... it is elastic as are all
philosophies... I use it as I desire...
Bretons definition:
SURREALISM, n. Pure psychic automatism, by which it is
intended to express, verbally, in writing, or by other means, the
real process of thought. Thought's dictation, in the absence of
all control exercised by the reason and outside all aesthetic or
moral preoccupations.
Anything that fits this definition is Surrealist. Perhaps in future we should
differentiate between "Surrealism" the movement entombed in history, and
"surrealism" which is (essentially) whatever we want it to be...
It just takes so much energy...
I think I'll melt back into the visual realm...
De Mortuis Nil Nisi Bonum
elag
barrett john erickson wrote:
As I read the passage Breton IS, exactly, advocating
> > contemplated murder.
>
> i'm confused as to how you could go through all the points above this,
> consider the passage in its context and still come to this conclusion.
>
> please offer some support for your assertion from within the context of the
> second manifesto.
>
> > ...or at least giving us the freedom to accept such thoughts as
> > EMPOWERING.
>
Dale Houstman
but (it should be obvious) this does not mean that all "Ways" are
surrealist.
Depends on how much of a partyliner you are: it seems
to me that to the Surrealists
all existence was surrealist, though to be discovered;
(to return to "religion") it is akin
to believing that all existence is god-enfused, but some
refuse to see the light. The
Surrealists hoped to take the blinders off. I think they
would say a ways were
Suurealist and then promptly pull down Lao-Tze's diapers
and spank his rump.
Anything as subconsious as surrealism would by nature
*have* to adhere to the more personal than to the rhetoric of a man that
has been dead for decades now.
Maybe not: isn't MacArthur surrealist when he resigns with a bathetic whine. Is Clinton surrealtist (or even Dadist) getting blown while talking to the "suits"? The fact that its "subconscious" renders its ubiquity more probable not less: it is the most conscious events and ideas that have the least "itness" to them: we are living in a world (for good and bad) constructed from people's dreams. It is up to each of us to "come to" (in other words, to go to sleep) and wake to the poetic "there in there": it is never an abstraction. If it is who needs it?But all in all, put well: and your avoidance of surrealism as fundamentalism would have gotten you spanked but good by Breton. But you might have liked it...
Dale H
Brandon J. Freels
>Are you going to tell me that I'm not a surrealist now?
You ain't no surrealist, and never been.
Compliments of Pope Brandon
Who likes Leonard Cohen anyway?
Dale Houstman
Who likes Leonard Cohen anyway?
I suspect (but cannot validate) that Leonard Choen does. However since he is a Buddhist it may be that he is beyond such considerations as "liking" and "unliking" and even the dubious "community" pursuit of e-mail. I like him too (from afar and through some grass Berkeley) and suspect (but cannot validate) that he likes me also. However since he is a Buddhist it may be that he is beyond such considerations.
Nietzche's Vienna companion Berner once said to a
street vendor of kielbasa: "Der umptensleiz Hoernen van stoit" which means
whatever the kielbasa came to think it meant after spending an evening
in Berner's stomach. Berner thought this very witty on his part (as documented
by the likes of Herr Thernt, who happened to be passing by on his way to
hear the Kapelmeister's newest production; this eyewitness account of the
two wild men of Vienna is printed only in a beautifully bound braille
edition a copy of which may be read in the New York Public Library), but
Berner was famous for his childish pranks
and this more correctly belongs among the likes of those. But since
Berner was an existentialist he may be beyond such considerations.
Dale H
barrett john erickson
>
> Granted... I'm speaking of surrealism on a personal level here. But- this raises an
> important question, namely: Who would be the first to be so presumptuous to define
> modern surrealism for a group (i.e. alt.surr)?
>
the base of my comments (as i said earlier) is that surrealism has a public
history, that this history clearly delineates some attitudes and actions as
counter- or anti-surrealist, and that this history also indicates some
obvious paths of exploration which can be clearly identified with
surrealism.
this history didn't end with WWII and it didn't end in 1966. the various
surrealists in various groups around the world today are a direct extension
of this history into the present.
my point has been and remains, that this is where any definition of
surrealism must begin and against which it must be judged. _any_
interpretation or designation of surrealism which ignores this context,
past and present, is simply by definition irrelevant to surrealism _as it
already exists_.
> [...]
> we (as human beings) are in an isolated reality (our own- that is: one reality per
> person) and only have an agreement between our fellow humans as to what is real.
now you've done it...
if i understand what you're saying this runs counter to breaking cognitive
theory, (which i perceive as converging significantly on the extension of
traditional surrealist paths -- my major current obsession).
i'll try to concisely describe the enactive cognitive model by pulling from
another text previously written (skip down a couple screens to the end of
this passage for a much briefer point or two):
*** <<passage taken from previous text>> ***
quoting Francisco Varela (from _The Embodied Mind_):
>>(quote)>>
Question 1: What is cognition?
Answer: Enaction: A history of structural coupling that brings forth a
world.
Question 2: How does it work?
Answer: Through a network consisting of multiple levels of interconnected,
sensorimotor subnetworks.
Question 3: How do I know when a cognitive system is functioning
adequately?
Answer: When it becomes part of an ongoing existing world (as the young of
every species do) or shapes a new one (as happens in evolutionary history).
Much that appears in these answers has hitherto been absent from cognitive
science -- not just from cognitivism but from present-day, state-of-the-art
connectionism. The most significant innovation is that since
representations no longer play a central role, the role of the environment
as a source of input recedes into the background. It now enters in
explanations only on those occasions when systems undergo breakdowns or
suffer events that cannot be satisfied by their structures. Accordingly,
intelligence shifts from being the capacity to solve a problem to the
capacity to enter into a shared world of significance.
<<(endquote)<<
"Structural coupling" is sensorimotor activity, which results in physical
changes on both sides of the interaction. In the brain for instance, our
sensory activity actually produces physical changes from which our
perceptions are assembled. At the same time, we have acted (sensed) in our
environmental realm and changed it.
This is what drives evolution (autopoiesis -- self-organizing systems).
To take this to the next step. Our concept of "reality" is constructed
from our "perceptions" (themselves constructed from physical changes in the
brain). And further, our sensorimotor activity is akin to a quantum
measurement, in that we have evolved the means to "sense" some aspects of
this latent reality, but not others. In fact, the very act of sensing one
aspect can preclude the possibility of sensing another (much as the
Heisenberg uncertainty principle, easily demonstrable in the way "vision"
has evolved in such different ways species to species).
The primary conceptual hurdle is placing what we normally call "reality" at
the other end of the sensory processes and then recognizing that the same
"reality-as-experienced" is shared -- within a species -- because as
individuals we couple in essentially identical ways with the same "latent"
reality.
[other species enact a very a different "reality" from the same "latent"
reality because their sensorimotor processes are quite different]
This "latent" reality could be thought of as what's on the other side of
the quantum barrier conceptually -- that is, the pre-measured quanta --
where everything (including ourselves) has some indefinable common
existence as a single process.
The "latent" reality is inherently indefinable for the obvious reason that
it is pre-experience (pre-measurement).
We "enact" a shared reality -- create it through (sensorimotor) action.
There is no need, in fact it seems counterintuitive, to make distinctions
between a "conscious" and "unconscious". Instead, I posit a seamless
variation in the complexity of cognitive activity, a "thickness" of
consciousness if you will, which emerges from the physical changes this
"structural coupling" produces.
In my view, the imagination is the most complex of cognitive activities,
our most evolved sense, distinguishable but not distinct from other
functioning. If we think of the senses as coupling with the latent
physical reality to produce an enacted experiential reality, we might think
of the imagination as coupling with latent brain activity to produce an
enhanced poetic reality.
So to call for the "liberation of the imagination" is really a call to
acknowledge and support its critical role at the leading edge of our
evolutionary development.
*** <<end passage from previous text>> ***
sorry, i know that's more than you ever wanted to know about enactive
cognition.
but the important thing relative to your comment is:
1) as a species, we enact a reality which is the same reality for all
others of our species to the extent that our sensori-motor processes are
similar and they are interacting with the same latent (pre-sensed) reality.
2) i think the imagination is the most complex and highly evolved of our
cognitive activities (as opposed to the pervailing view of the
"subconscious"), responsible for our concept of reality in its more
primative functioning and for "poetic reality" in its most evolved
functioning.
3) it follows, then, that the surrealist project of liberating, and
integrating our imaginations into an _enhanced poetic reality_ takes on
extreme importance, even for scientists.
i'll spare you further elaboration of my current obsessions.
"oh, no i've said too much...
i haven't said enough..."
barrett john erickson
> >
> > again, context is important if you're going to argue what a text means:
>
> means to whom?
>
> >
> >
> > properly framed,
>
> properly framed according to whos standards/interpertations/definitions?
>
> > so, as with the "simplest Surrealist act" quotation, you can use the word
> > "as [you] desire" -- no one can stop you -- but if you ignore this context,
> > you forfeit your right to argue its meaning.
>
> by whos standards!?!?who is the definer of this meaning!?!?!? YOU!!!!!! Not me,
> everyone else I cannot speak for.
this isn't a matter of standards. either you're talking about the text
that was presented or you're not. if you are discussing a quoted passage
from a text by another author, it has an intrinsic context -- its place in
the original document -- which greatly affects the validity of any
potential interpretations (relative only to the standards of the language
in which it is read, which could also be considered part of its intrinsic
context).
by very simple example:
passage: on the date they'd arranged, he took his date to dinner and
there he ate his date.
consider the meaning of any specific "date".
is it a numbered 24 hour period in some month? a social engagement? a
woman? the sweet, oblong, edible fruit of a tropical palm tree?
deliberately ignoring the context makes _any_ statement about its "meaning"
arbitrary and irrelevant to the author's work and therefore without any
value to a discussion about that work.
obviously, however, this shouldn't be taken as a claim that there is only
one specific "objective" meaning to be found.
> [...]
> > my journey began with that definition and allowed what i consider a better
> > one to be recognized in the on-going (continuous) evolution of surrealist
> > themes -- particularly since the 60's -- when viewed in _my_ time.
>
> Right....for *you*, but not for me.... Are you going to tell me that I'm not a
> surrealist now?
>
my responses in this thread were provoked, as stated before, by 1) a
misquotation and 2) an attempt to correct a misrepresentation which results
from taking the misquoted passage out of context.
i don't have much interest in trying to judge who is or who isn't a
surrealist -- people are not static objects which can be so cleanly
labeled.
i might, however, contest someone's claim to the term if they: 1) make
blatantly anti- or counter-surrealist statements (relative to the history
of surrealism), 2) demonstrate ignorance of the history of surrealist
investigations, 3) are unwilling to acknowledge, investigate and learn from
prior surrealist investigations, _AND_ yet 4) arrogantly insist that they
_are_ surrealist because _they can unilaterally determine what surrealism
is_. such a person has clearly demonstrated that they have no sense of
community, shared experience, or desire to engage other surrealists around
the world and, therefore, _consider themselves_ outside of surrealism _as
it exists_.
but (even against evidence), i begin with the assumption that everyone here
is interested in furthering the surrealist project as they perceive it
(even if they don't always have a very clear or historically accurate
concept of that project).
sometimes that assumption is quickly proven wrong, but not often.
Talysman
write
in alt.surrealism:
"Talysman <taly...@softhome.net> wrote:
"> that which places shackles on emotion or imagination or the human
"> spirit has no place in surrealism.
"But cannot the unexpected placing of shackles also be surreal?
"Saying "shackles have no place in surrealism" shackles surrealism
"just as much as the shackles themselves do.
your cries that my ban on shackles shackle you is shackling me!
OK, I will amend this to say that shackles are not allowed unless
they are the kind that destroy shackles.
self-inflicted shackling is also allowed.
there is also something to be said about making your own shackles,
every day, to be worn around your neck before placing them on
tomorrow morning's god.
--
VOICE (goat): "I am the American taxburden!"
Talysman
write in alt.surrealism:
"Talysman wrote:
"
"> [...]
"
"> Mr. Erickson,
"> your interpretation of Breton's crowd-shooting comment seems
"> accurate, but you are the epitome of everything Breton was
"> railing against...
"obviously, either i haven't communicated my position clearly enough for
"you, or perhaps you are making unwarranted assumptions and extrapolations.
OVERcommunicated your position, you mean.
I got what you were saying. as I mentioned, I believe you
are correct in your interpretation of the Breton passage.
he wasn't advocating violence, he was advocating rebellion.
freedom. spontaneity. living your feelings.
but your WRITING-- it's too pedantic. reads exactly like
any NYT art/lit critic. DEAD and SUFFICATING. in direct
contrast to the passage you quoted.
you see, what I was referring to when I said
"> that which places shackles on emotion or imagination or the human
"> spirit has no place in surrealism.
was something you wrote, which I quoted, and you just snipped,
which said that surrealism should have nothing to do with dada.
just like that. not "surrealism and dada are not the same thing,"
or "surrealism and dada are opposites" or anything like that.
you FORBADE surrealists from glancing sideways at a dada piece.
dada can be experienced, the same as love, hate, fear, joy, or
anything that happens in this world. even if we don't paint
moustaches on Salvador Dali, we can still be inspired by dadaist
acts and re-interpret them in a surreal way.
"Dada is not dead. Watch your overcoat!"
--- sign at a surrealist exhibition
even if we HATED dada the same as we hate government, can't we
be inspired to speak out against dada the same as we speak out
against government?
or must we truely cut ourselves off from it and pretend it isn't
there?
"i don't much care what a dead man might have thought about my statements
then stop worrying about him.
I never said "Andre Breton rose out of the grave last night dripping
with phosphorescent fungi and blood and he grabbed my shoulders and
screamed in my face `I HATE BARRETT JOHN ERICKSON, THE MAN WITH A
FIRST NAME SANDWICH! I HOPE HE DIES AND COMES TO VISIT ME IN HELL
WHERE I SHALL HAVE MY UNHOLY WAY WITH HIM! AHAHAHAHAHA!'"
not as I recall, at least.
--
"I don't suffer from insanity. My clothes do."
Dale Houstman
Europeanized BuddhismAmericanized BuddhismJapanized BuddhismChinesized Buddhism It all boils down to a paradox of fools*
No doubt (though I think Leonard would be a Jewdist); but there are Holy Fools and there are Only Fools and there are Moldy Figs and there are China Pigs and there are Pekin Ducks and there are Peeking Toms and there are Tom-toms and there are Whiskey Drummers and there are Low Dramas and there are High Lamas and there are Llama Hides and there are Laminates and there are Ham and Eggs and there are Humanists and there are Humidors and there are Dutch Doors and there are Dutch Ovens and there are Dutch Schultzes and there are Dachsunds and there are Doctors and there are Proctors and there are Gambles and there are Gimbels and there are Symbols and there are Shambles. This is a Shambles...
If "it all boils down to" anything then I am a poacher on your Nest Egg. If you can't stands the heat get out of the bitchin'.
Dale "French Toast" H
Dale Houstman
"There is no need, in fact it seems counterintuitive, to make distinctions
between a "conscious" and "unconscious". Instead, I posit a seamless
variation in the complexity of cognitive activity, a "thickness" of
consciousness if you will, which emerges from the physical changes this
"structural coupling" produces."In my view, the imagination is the most complex of cognitive activities,
our most evolved sense, distinguishable but not distinct from other
functioning."
Precisely: I for one have argued for years
against this "disunity" concept (quite unashamedly foisted upon us again
by Freud); in a writing class an instructor asked me if something I had
written was "consciously" or "unconsciously" produced and I told him that
I felt the question itself was irrelevant. Surely "ideas" swim in the same
pool together
and the difference between a "willed" and and "unwilled" response to
a substance you are self-initiating is not a serious distinction? Thanks
for bringing this up.
However, though the ideas you are putting forth are
valid your presentation is too dry to be effectively digested by the mind-gut.
"If we think that we think / of the senses coupling / with the latent to produce /an enacted reality that we think if we think/ then we might think / that we think /
of the coupling of imagination with the latent to produce / poetic reality /
that we think (if we think). / So to call and to call / and to crawl and to crawl /
for the "liberation of the imagination" / is to call and to call / for support /
at its leading edge / where the edge leads us / I know if I know /
Still MORE!
Dale "Dry as a Biscuit Himself" H
Dale Houstman
Erose Fidelity (aka Dale H)
Paul Kinsler wrote:
But cannot the unexpected placing of shackles also be surreal?
Saying "shackles have no place in surrealism" shackles surrealism
just as much as the shackles themselves do.
Chicken Shackles.
Pizza Shackles.
Psychedelic Shackles.
Love Shackles.
Boom Shackle Acka.
*
A home is anywhere you can hang your shackles
*
Dale H
elag
TROLLSTROLLSTROLLSTROLLSTROLLSTROLLSTROLLS
TROLLS OLLSTROLLS OLLST LSTROLLS
TROLLS LSTROLLS OLLS OLLSTRO STROLLS
TROLLS O STROLLS OLL ROLLSTROL TROLLS
TROLLS OL TROLLS OLL ROLLSTROL TROLLS
TROLLS OLL ROLLS OLL ROLLSTROL TROLLS
TROLLS OLLS OLLS OLL ROLLSTROL TROLLS
TROLLS OLLST LLS OLL ROLLSTROL TROLLS
TROLLS OLLSTR LS OLL ROLLSTROL TROLLS
TROLLS OLLSTRO S OLL ROLLSTROL TROLLS
TROLLS OLLSTROL OLLS OLLSTRO STROLLS
TROLLS OLLSTROLLS OLLST LSTROLLS
TROLLSTROLLSTROLLSTROLLSTROLLSTROLLSTROLLS
TROLLSTROLLSTROLLSTROLLSTROLLSTROLLSTROLLS
{8^>[|||||]----||
Brandon J. Freels
Surrealism embraces desire.
---BJF
barrett john erickson
> [...]
> OVERcommunicated your position, you mean.
>
> I got what you were saying. as I mentioned, I believe you
> are correct in your interpretation of the Breton passage.
> he wasn't advocating violence, he was advocating rebellion.
> freedom. spontaneity. living your feelings.
>
> but your WRITING-- it's too pedantic. reads exactly like
> any NYT art/lit critic. DEAD and SUFFICATING. in direct
> contrast to the passage you quoted.
well, i certainly accept that criticism with total humility.
my recent communications (this included) have been largely expository, a
bit tired and without the spark of invention or antagonism.
further desiccation has been promoted by congruent exposure to an arid text
on brain function.
[if you have any interest, i can offer in my defense, some "fresher" and
more spontaneous texts on the same or similar subjects which can be found
in my personal cul de sac at:
http://www.MagneticFields.org/barrett/index.html
specifically,
http://www.MagneticFields.org/barrett/texts/chenwars.html
http://www.MagneticFields.org/barrett/texts/altsur.html
http://www.MagneticFields.org/barrett/texts/phantom.html
http://www.MagneticFields.org/barrett/texts/trick.html
as the dates will reveal, this is very old ground.]
> you see, what I was referring to when I said
>
> "> that which places shackles on emotion or imagination or the human
> "> spirit has no place in surrealism.
>
> was something you wrote, which I quoted, and you just snipped,
> which said that surrealism should have nothing to do with dada.
> just like that. not "surrealism and dada are not the same thing,"
> or "surrealism and dada are opposites" or anything like that.
>
> you FORBADE surrealists from glancing sideways at a dada piece.
i don't believe i did at all.
please feel free to correct me if i've missed your reference (i don't have
your original post at hand) but a quick scan of my posts turns up two
mentions of dada:
"most importantly, we need to keep in mind that the revolution surrealism
seeks is _creative_ (as opposed to the destructivness of dada)."
and,
"as for Diogenes, i remember little, but it seems to me that cynicism is
much closer to dada and has no place in surrealist explorations."
neither of these deny the genealogical link of dada and surrealism, much
less presume to forbid surrealists from "glancing sideways at a dada
piece."
the first simply makes a distinction. the second is my conclusion that
_cynicism_ has no place in surrealist explorations. but dada was much more
than mere cynicism.
> [...]
> or must we truely cut ourselves off from [dada] and pretend it isn't
> there?
certainly not. and this was not the intent of my statements as explained
above (i do wish someone would start an "alt.dada", however).
> "i don't much care what a dead man might have thought about my statements
>
> then stop worrying about him.
again, it's not Breton that concerned me. it was a very common
misquotation which perpetuates a very common misrepresentation of
surrealism (which is at its base a lack of distinction between it and
dada).
barrett john erickson
>[...]
> However, though the ideas you are putting forth are valid your
> presentation is too dry to be effectively digested by the mind-gut.
accepted with humility. as explained in my reply to "Talysman", i've been
trapped in a text on brain function. that and the lack of antagonistic
spark has meant severe dehydration.
[if interested, i refer you to more creative efforts at:
http://www.skypoint.com/~barrett/aarc/aarcmain.html
and
http://www.skypoint.com/~barrett/ARTlab/note0196.html
which were written during the initial exploration of these ideas. and:
http://www.MagneticFields.org/EARdJour/one/
which is the first number of a journal of enactive aesthetics research, and
a more poetic exploration of this theme:
http://www.MagneticFields.org/EARdJour/one/page12.html
which is my text collage in that journal.]
barrett john erickson
>[...]
> "But cannot the unexpected placing of shackles also be surreal?
> "Saying "shackles have no place in surrealism" shackles surrealism
> "just as much as the shackles themselves do.
>
> your cries that my ban on shackles shackle you is shackling me!
>
> OK, I will amend this to say that shackles are not allowed unless
> they are the kind that destroy shackles.
>
> self-inflicted shackling is also allowed.
>
> there is also something to be said about making your own shackles,
> every day, to be worn around your neck before placing them on
> tomorrow morning's god.
this round about simply leaves us where we began:
shackles are never compatible with surrealism, self-imposed or not, and
religions of all kinds are the prototypical dundgeon in which far too many
imaginations are eaten by rats.
xister
Dale Houstman wrote:
>>
>
> But all in all, put well: and your avoidance of surrealism as
> fundamentalism would have gotten you spanked but good by Breton. But
> you might have liked it...
...And would have asked for another ;)
Dale Houstman
Buddhism is about lacking desire.
Surrealism embraces desire.
I rather like this and it's true of course. I don't know if there could be a surrealist*
buddhist although there is always some disconnect between the Ideal and the Praxis: Surrealism didn't much embrace homosexuality either (Breton had a personal dread of the notion) but there were homosexual Surrealists. The same argument could be ventured for suicides and drug-use. But your point is a good one; "desire" does seem particularly central to Surrealism. Were there days / weeks / months / years when any particular
Surrealist lacked desire? Did they cease being Surrealist for this duration? Is Artaud, who is the ultimate cynic and (it seems) rather desireless a Surrealist? And so on...
Dale "Blue Lobster" H
Talysman
write in alt.surrealism:
"Talysman wrote:
"
"> [...]
"
"> Mr. Erickson,
"> your interpretation of Breton's crowd-shooting comment seems
"> accurate, but you are the epitome of everything Breton was
"> railing against...
"obviously, either i haven't communicated my position clearly enough for
"you, or perhaps you are making unwarranted assumptions and extrapolations.
OVERcommunicated your position, you mean.
I got what you were saying. as I mentioned, I believe you
are correct in your interpretation of the Breton passage.
he wasn't advocating violence, he was advocating rebellion.
freedom. spontaneity. living your feelings.
but your WRITING-- it's too pedantic. reads exactly like
any NYT art/lit critic. DEAD and SUFFOCATING. in direct
contrast to the passage you quoted.
you see, what I was referring to when I said
"> that which places shackles on emotion or imagination or the human
"> spirit has no place in surrealism.
was something you wrote, which I quoted, and you just snipped,
which said that surrealism should have nothing to do with dada.
just like that. not "surrealism and dada are not the same thing,"
or "surrealism and dada are opposites" or anything like that.
you FORBADE surrealists from glancing sideways at a dada piece.
dada can be experienced, the same as love, hate, fear, joy, or
anything that happens in this world. even if we don't paint
moustaches on Salvador Dali, we can still be inspired by dadaist
acts and re-interpret them in a surreal way.
"Dada is not dead. Watch your overcoat!"
--- sign at a surrealist exhibition
even if we HATED dada the same as we hate government, can't we
be inspired to speak out against dada the same as we speak out
against government?
or must we truely cut ourselves off from it and pretend it isn't
there?
"i don't much care what a dead man might have thought about my statements
then stop worrying about him.
I never said "Andre Breton rose out of the grave last night dripping
with phosphorescent fungi and blood and he grabbed my shoulders and
screamed in my face `I HATE BARRETT JOHN ERICKSON, THE MAN WITH A
FIRST NAME SANDWICH! I HOPE HE DIES AND COMES TO VISIT ME IN HELL
WHERE I SHALL HAVE MY UNHOLY WAY WITH HIM! AHAHAHAHAHA!'"
not as I recall, at least.
--
"Hear the only sound of director padding film!"
(1995 Dallas NonCon MiSTing of GYMKATA)
xister
Brandon J. Freels wrote:
> non x-ister wrote:
>
> >Are you going to tell me that I'm not a surrealist now?
>
> You ain't no surrealist, and never been.
Ah, but how little you really know of me Brandon J.... The images I
bandy about on alt.surr aren't really a true representation of me and my
art; if they were, then I truly would be only dadaist (and probably not
all that serious about my art). As has been stated in alt.surr before
(unless it's a false memory I'm thinking of), dada has a cynicism to it,
and quite frankly, I enjoy wallowing in cynicism... Besides, cut and
paste ready-mades (that which I assume you're judging me by) are
wonderful for conveying a message in a visual form.... And it's *fun*.
This is one of the reasons I hold a loose definition of surrealism (for
good or ill). Just because I don't emit surrealism in everything I do or
say doesn't mean that it's not my ideal.
xister
barrett john erickson wrote:
> >
>
> the base of my comments (as i said earlier) is that surrealism has a public
> history, that this history clearly delineates some attitudes and actions as
> counter- or anti-surrealist, and that this history also indicates some
> obvious paths of exploration which can be clearly identified with
> surrealism.
>
> this history didn't end with WWII and it didn't end in 1966. the various
> surrealists in various groups around the world today are a direct extension
> of this history into the present.
>
> my point has been and remains, that this is where any definition of
> surrealism must begin and against which it must be judged. _any_
> interpretation or designation of surrealism which ignores this context,
> past and present, is simply by definition irrelevant to surrealism _as it
> already exists_.
You've made your arguments well Barrett, and I must say here that you've swayed me. I
think I understand your points and agree with much of what you say. As I read it,
basically you're saying: look at the bigger picture (from my own point of view), include
all that is surreal by history's definition, and build on that foundation. This I can
live with :)
>
>
> There is no need, in fact it seems counterintuitive, to make distinctions
> between a "conscious" and "unconscious". Instead, I posit a seamless
> variation in the complexity of cognitive activity, a "thickness" of
> consciousness if you will, which emerges from the physical changes this
> "structural coupling" produces.
Like an onion without the different layers being so obviously distinguishable, if I take
what you're saying correctly. Although I use the terms subconscious/conscious I've never
felt that they were very far apart from each other (so to speak), just at different
ends(?) of my mind for lack of a better definition.
So am I right to assume you don't subscribe to the duality of the mind? (Such as
right/left brain, female/male, instinct/logic) Or am I reading too much into the above
statement? I mean, I've always been of the mind (no pun intended- well, yes it was:) from
what I've read and from information that I have gleaned that in essence we as humans are
evolving (and have already to a point) into almost two mirror-like entities in one body,
and the conscious/subconscious seems to fit well into that model.
>
>
> sorry, i know that's more than you ever wanted to know about enactive
> cognition.
On the contrary, I devoured it!
>
>
>
> 3) it follows, then, that the surrealist project of liberating, and
> integrating our imaginations into an _enhanced poetic reality_ takes on
> extreme importance, even for scientists.
>
>
And I certainly cannot argue, but wholeheartedly agree with that...
barrett john erickson
>I don't know if there could be a surrealist
> buddhist although there is always some disconnect between the Ideal and
> the Praxis: Surrealism didn't much embrace homosexuality either (Breton
> had a personal dread of the notion) but there were homosexual
> Surrealists. The same argument could be ventured for suicides and
> drug-use. But your point is a good one; "desire" does seem particularly
> central to Surrealism. Were there days / weeks / months / years when any
> particular
> Surrealist lacked desire? Did they cease being Surrealist for this
> duration? Is Artaud, who is the ultimate cynic and (it seems) rather
> desireless a Surrealist? And so on...
you highlight some interesting questions for exploration.
personally, i think desire is at the center of the human process, not just
surrealism.
and while i can't offer any specific evidence, i think it is generally
accepted (as you point out) that the original class of surrealists had a
somewhat narrowed field of desire.
a product of their times, no doubt.
i think this clearly shows how surrealism is capable of evolving without
renouncing its history. regardless of how prudish Breton may have been,
the message of surrealism has always been one of liberating desire.
but what i find most interesting is where the stakes have been (blindly, in
my opinion) plunged by some of today's "surrealists" [quotations intended
to indicate only that they consider themselves surrealists].
for instance, the subject of "child porn" caused a bit of a rift when it
was dropped into a surrealist mailing list a couple years ago.
so let's open this up to the group:
can surrealists tolerate _any_ limits on desire?
[and i'll make the not so surprising disclosure that my answer is "no"
(assuming you've first identified, segregated and devalued the _falsified_
"desire" which comes to us from others).]
barrett john erickson
> barrett john erickson wrote:
>
> > There is no need, in fact it seems counterintuitive, to make distinctions
> > between a "conscious" and "unconscious". Instead, I posit a seamless
> > variation in the complexity of cognitive activity, a "thickness" of
> > consciousness if you will, which emerges from the physical changes this
> > "structural coupling" produces.
>
> Like an onion without the different layers being so obviously distinguishable, if I take
> what you're saying correctly.
yes, basically, but even without that amount differentiation. i've often
thought of it as continuous "thickness" of consciousnes, with (as you say)
simple awareness at one end and full bloom (and fully integrated)
imagination at the other.
> So am I right to assume you don't subscribe to the duality of the mind?
yes.
> (Such as
> right/left brain, female/male, instinct/logic) Or am I reading too much into the above
> statement? I mean, I've always been of the mind (no pun intended- well, yes it was:) from
> what I've read and from information that I have gleaned that in essence we as humans are
> evolving (and have already to a point) into almost two mirror-like entities in one body,
> and the conscious/subconscious seems to fit well into that model.
i don't think you need to endorse a duality to explain this "split". it
may be the result of both pre-birth genetic predisposition and post-birth
development.
much of the observable specialization will be altered when necessary -- for
instance in the case of a brain injury to a pre-speech child. this all
seems to be more flexible than once thought.
but i'm not really qualified to go much further with this. fascinated, but
no expert.
Talysman
write in alt.surrealism:
"Talysman wrote:
"> [...]
"
"> OVERcommunicated your position, you mean.
[ etc. ]
""well, i certainly accept that criticism with total humility.
"my recent communications (this included) have been largely expository, a
"bit tired and without the spark of invention or antagonism.
OK, explanation accepted, URL noted.
and I like the fact that, even though I was a bit antagonist,
you didn't get defensive. good man.
"> you FORBADE surrealists from glancing sideways at a dada piece.
"i don't believe i did at all.
""as for Diogenes, i remember little, but it seems to me that cynicism is
"much closer to dada and has no place in surrealist explorations."
"the first simply makes a distinction. the second is my conclusion that
"_cynicism_ has no place in surrealist explorations. but dada was much more
"than mere cynicism.
OK, but I think you can see that when you say:
cynicism is closer to dada than to surrealism; and,
cynicism has no place in surrealist explorations.
that the implication of connecting those two ideas is that dada
likewise has no place in surrealist explorations. forgive me
for drawing that conclusion. I see now that you were thinking
more of cynicism's negativity as opposed to surrealism's
positiveness.
I'll buy that.
--
"Dates in calendar are far more powerful than they appear!"
Talysman
write in alt.surrealism:
"Talysman wrote:
"> self-inflicted shackling is also allowed.
">
"> there is also something to be said about making your own shackles,
"> every day, to be worn around your neck before placing them on
"> tomorrow morning's god.
"
"this round about simply leaves us where we began:
"
"shackles are never compatible with surrealism, self-imposed or not, and
"religions of all kinds are the prototypical dundgeon in which far too many
"imaginations are eaten by rats.
true. it was meant to be more humorous than anything else, but
note that I didn't say anything about shackle compatibillity.
I just gave that other person permission to self-shackle, if so
desired.
and you didn't get the idea behind making your own shackles any more
than you got the point of making your own gods.
you make shackles/gods *DAILY* so that you learn about how
artificial they are, and thus free yourself from them.
--
"chimpanzees are virtually never particularly
snake-like in the midst of the joy of battle."
scot...@earthlink.net
> (assuming you've first identified, segregated and devalued the _falsified_
> "desire" which comes to us from others).
I find it interesting how I react to this particular statement in your
post.
I understand what you are saying and support it completely.
At the same time I think I would be compelled to hunt down and burn
whatever plastic rulers are applied to the problem of defining the
measurements of "falsified desire".
I don't feel there is any contradiction in this.
Talysman
write in alt.surrealism:
[ re: child porn ]
"can surrealists tolerate _any_ limits on desire?
"[and i'll make the not so surprising disclosure that my answer is "no"
"(assuming you've first identified, segregated and devalued the _falsified_
""desire" which comes to us from others).]
I'll agree with this: much of what people *think* they desire
is really just a passing fancy, entertained in boredom, or an
obsession cherished because they either cannot fulfill their
*real* desires, or think the false desire is the key to getting
what they *really* want.
but I will also point out another possible reason why desire
might be limited by first quoting something else you said in
this post:
"regardless of how prudish Breton may have been,
"the message of surrealism has always been one of liberating desire.
the argument of those enslaved by childporn is that they should
be allowed to liberate their desires. but what about the child?
is this truely liberating for the child, or merely another form
of slavery?
--
`J. R. "Bob" Dobbs, Deny thy name!'
xister
barrett john erickson wrote:
>
>
> you highlight some interesting questions for exploration.
>
> personally, i think desire is at the center of the human process, not just
> surrealism.
I would agree on that.
>
>
> and while i can't offer any specific evidence, i think it is generally
> accepted (as you point out) that the original class of surrealists had a
> somewhat narrowed field of desire.
>
> a product of their times, no doubt.
>
> i think this clearly shows how surrealism is capable of evolving without
> renouncing its history.
I agree now on this also.
> regardless of how prudish Breton may have been,
> the message of surrealism has always been one of liberating desire.
This is why I embrace surrealism- to liberate desire. If it's my desire to
incorporate something else into the philosophy of surrealism (but staying true
to the original flavor of surrealism) then I must liberate that desire. But I
don't think that makes me a non-surrealist. It seems to me that incorporating
that into surrealism's ideal would only serve to make it more encompassing. I'm
not advocating incorporating religion per se, but if someone can do it and
still feel that they're a surrealist then I say let them. Maybe they'll change
the public face of surrealism, maybe they won't.. Who knows? Dali was a
Catholic and believed in god. He was expelled from the surrealists, but he
still remained a leading force in surrealism. I can paint a painting that has
flavors of cubism *and* surrealism. Does this mean that it isn't surreal? I do
that with many works, where I'll meld more than one style with surrealism, and
in the long run I see that although I stray from the original definition of
surrealism, I can still call the whole of my work surreal (and feel that it
falls within the classic definition of surreal). This reminds me of your
comments on reality: "There are different thicknesses of consciousness..."
wouldn't it be logical that there could be different levels/flavors of
surrealism?
>
>
> but what i find most interesting is where the stakes have been (blindly, in
> my opinion) plunged by some of today's "surrealists"
I would admit to blindly plunging- I probably do it too often. But I think it
does a person good (surrealist or not) to work in the realm of "no rules"
every once and a while. It frees you up; let's you see things from a new
perspective, and elicits new ideas.
>
>
> for instance, the subject of "child porn" caused a bit of a rift when it
> was dropped into a surrealist mailing list a couple years ago.
>
> so let's open this up to the group:
>
> can surrealists tolerate _any_ limits on desire?
My answer would have to be "no limits" also, tho with a tiny amendment
perhaps... As long as your desire doesn't intrude upon another in a physically
or emotionally detrimental way (what would be the point?). But perhaps that
falls into the realm of falsified desire? Please elaborate on "falsified
desire".
barrett john erickson
Talysman wrote:
> the argument of those enslaved by childporn is that they should
> be allowed to liberate their desires. but what about the child?
> is this truely liberating for the child, or merely another form
> of slavery?
"enslaved" by "child porn"? i fail to see how pictures (moving or still)
and stories can enslave anyone.
i reject the whole notion of "pornography" since i think anything humans do
is natural for humans to do. in that context any attempt to label
something as "obscene" or "indecent" is a denial of human reality, let
alone a denial of human liberty.
there is, however, a valid issue that you raise when you ask about "the
child". but if this was not a voluntary participation, i don't think it
has anything to do with desire, but rather power.
in my opinion, all hierarchies and power relationships dissipate or destroy
desire.
xister wrote:
> don't think that makes me a non-surrealist. It seems to me that incorporating
i wouldn't worry about that so much. in the end, action will determine and
others will still judge. it's what humans do.
> > can surrealists tolerate _any_ limits on desire?
>
> My answer would have to be "no limits" also, tho with a tiny amendment
> perhaps... As long as your desire doesn't intrude upon another in a physically
> or emotionally detrimental way (what would be the point?). But perhaps that
> falls into the realm of falsified desire? Please elaborate on "falsified
> desire".
the problem you quickly come to with this, however, is atrocities like
Andrea Dworkin's traveling mercenary act, writing anti-porn statutes for
various communities, defining and criminalizing "pornography" as "abuse" of
not only the people portrayed (absurd enough), but anyone coming into
contact with it.
the absurdity of Dworkinism is commically revealed by the fact that her own
book was seized by canadian customs officials for being in violation of the
very law she wrote.
[elaboration of what i meant by "falsified desire" below...]
scot...@earthlink.net wrote:
>
> barrett john erickson wrote:
>
> > (assuming you've first identified, segregated and devalued the _falsified_
> > "desire" which comes to us from others).
>
> I find it interesting how I react to this particular statement in your
> post.
>
> I understand what you are saying and support it completely.
>
> At the same time I think I would be compelled to hunt down and burn
> whatever plastic rulers are applied to the problem of defining the
> measurements of "falsified desire".
>
> I don't feel there is any contradiction in this.
i think this is the heart of the necessary inquiry.
to offer an example i've used before:
is the "desire" for a "Big Mac" a "true" desire? i would say no. the
"true" desire is for nourishment. the "desire" for a "Big Mac" can only
come about through the manipulation _by others_ of the "true" desire for
nourishment. i certainly wouldn't "desire" a "Big Mac" if i'd never heard
of one.
this seems quite clear to me.
but what about the "desire" for "the simplest Surrealist act"? or a
"desire" to rape?
if we accept the concept of "falsified desire" and that a distinction must
be made (for social reasons if none other) between "true" desire and
"falsified" desire, how can this then be accomplished?
perhaps such actions as rape or manslaughter are too complex to be
accurately described as "desires" at all?
i _have_ reached one conclusion: we _discover_ our "true" desires -- they
are _revealed_ to us through spontaneous (automatist) action -- they cannot
be determined or even identified through learned responses or planned
operations.
all power relationships seem to fall into the "learned" category.
scot...@earthlink.net
>
> ...
> if we accept the concept of "falsified desire" and that a distinction must
> be made (for social reasons if none other) between "true" desire and
> "falsified" desire, how can this then be accomplished?
This statement invokes a leap of faith and thus in my mind becomes
religious. I have no problem with that. I may sometimes make the leap.
Not because I am a true believer but because I look for tools to explore
what it means to be a human being. However the concept of "true versus
falsified desires", like most religious concepts, crackles with
problems.
>
> i _have_ reached one conclusion: we _discover_ our "true" desires -- they
> are _revealed_ to us through spontaneous (automatist) action -- they cannot
> be determined or even identified through learned responses or planned
> operations.
>
> all power relationships seem to fall into the "learned" category.
>
In my view, the body, from its beginning, is wired with the potentiality
for "power relationships" almost as strongly as it is wired with the
potentiality to experience thirst or sexual desire.
I believe an individual's body is being re-created as the individual
experiences, interacts with, and alters the environment. This
re-creation is wide ranging, from the mapping of the electronic path
ways of the brain to the density of the bone. I would have a very
difficult time convincing myself that any of this re-creation should
be considered "falsified". (*see note)
The two views outlined, if correct, would tend to undermine your
concept that divisions can be made in regards to desire.
I am offering no research background to support the viewpoints I
am expressing, and I will not. It would take more energy than I want
to expend and frankly it is not really relevant. I am responding to
a leap of faith. I outlined views I have that would keep me from
becoming a true believer.
(Note: This does not mean I must approve. The "good citizen" who clubs
his "enemy" to death, may do so with a hallucinogenic grin brought
on by the training of his culture and the speeches of his leaders.
The hallucination may be false everywhere but within the body of the
"good citizen".)
barrett john erickson
> > if we accept the concept of "falsified desire" and that a distinction must
> > be made (for social reasons if none other) between "true" desire and
> > "falsified" desire, how can this then be accomplished?
>
> This statement invokes a leap of faith and thus in my mind becomes
> religious. I have no problem with that. I may sometimes make the leap.
> Not because I am a true believer but because I look for tools to explore
> what it means to be a human being. However the concept of "true versus
> falsified desires", like most religious concepts, crackles with
> problems.
but _i_ have a problem with any "leap of faith" and have always focused
considerable effort toward erradicating any detected.
you didn't comment on my "Big Mac" example, so i'm not sure how to continue
here (that is, if you have an argument with that). the distinction at
least in that case, between a "true" and a "falsified" desire, seems to me
a matter of both intuitive and analytical clarity.
as for the assertion that this distinction _must_ be made, i think for 2
reasons:
1) desire is, i argue, at the core of the human process (and also therefore
the surrealist project). [as i wrote elsewhere: "we do before we are, and
what we do first is pursue intuitive desire."] the liberation of the
imagination requires and implies the liberation of desire.
2) the falsification and subversion of that desire is both how people are
manipulated and why they allow themselves to be manipulated in ways which
limit creative living (this is a Situationist thesis which i think has been
well developed).
that is the foundation for my comments -- not matters of faith, but
conclusions reached over the years from explorations which began with no
assumptions beyond my own cognitive processes (as far as determinable, and
i always remain open to re-examination).
> >
> > i _have_ reached one conclusion: we _discover_ our "true" desires -- they
> > are _revealed_ to us through spontaneous (automatist) action -- they cannot
> > be determined or even identified through learned responses or planned
> > operations.
> >
> > all power relationships seem to fall into the "learned" category.
> >
>
> In my view, the body, from its beginning, is wired with the potentiality
> for "power relationships" almost as strongly as it is wired with the
> potentiality to experience thirst or sexual desire.
the only thing i think the human body is "wired" for is sensori-motor
activity, a pattern of physical development which supports higher functions
like language, consciousness, imagination, etc., and desire (which i
consider a kind of container term for our drive to fulfill basic functional
needs, enhanced as we develop a concept of "self" into a life
"aesthetic").
in other words, in the beginning it's all potential, no essence.
[please elaborate a bit, on how you came to your conclusion, and your
operative definition of "power relationships".
i consider this a struggle to control -- events, processes or people -- and
i think it is learned rather than innate.]
>
> I believe an individual's body is being re-created as the individual
> experiences, interacts with, and alters the environment. This
> re-creation is wide ranging, from the mapping of the electronic path
> ways of the brain to the density of the bone.
absolutely!
>I would have a very
> difficult time convincing myself that any of this re-creation should
> be considered "falsified". (*see note)
but there is more to us than the physicalities brought about via the
process of "structural coupling" (as Varela would term it) with our
(latent) physical environment.
our consciousness, including our imagination, is a more complex process
which emerges from these more "physical" processes. the "mind" also
"couples structurally" with the body, altering both.
so you have a "coupling" triad (but language is a bit deceptive here, i
don't consider these in any way separable): the underlying (latent)
reality with which our sensori-motor processes couple (altering both), then
the emergent process of "mind" coupling with the body (sensori-motor
processes and others, also altering both).
the "falsification of desire" is the result of a manipulation our
imagination. [the third element of the "coupling" triad being how our
imagination and shared reality "couple".]
as for the example in your note, i would say that it is certainly possible
to conceive of quite a range of actions which are not particularly
beneficial socially (in a limited sense) which i would agree are not
necessarily the result of "falsified" desires. just as there is a wide
range of actions which _are_ beneficial socially (in a limited sense) but i
would nevertheless assert are the result of "falsified" desire.
but i would still argue that on the grand scale we are better off socially
without those, if our goal is to live creatively.
xister
but perhaps it will spark more ideas on the subject at hand...
Last night I was thinking to myself; O.K., I if I had the desire to rape a
person, or entice a child to have sex with me, or kill someone, where would
that desire come from? The only answer I could come up with was: Those desires
are the same as any desire.
You want it; that's all there is to it (at the moment of wanting). When I let
loose a desire that comes to me, especially an illegal or immoral one (but not
dismissing more worthwhile desires such as creation of art) giving into it
makes me feel alive- a rush of adrenaline and good feeling washes over me. I
get a sharper sense of being-and a heightened sense of awareness; a ""peak
experience"". It makes life worth living for me no matter what it is. I think
its the same with murder/rape/etc.
Then I asked myself: Well, why don't you desire to rape or have sex with kids?
It's not because I think it's as simple as ""right or wrong"". Why do I turn
that hatred toward the bourgeois and life into something creative instead of
something destructive or detrimental? Why do I *care*? And maybe that's it,
because I care... For the life of me, I don't know why, but it was instilled in
me somewhere, somehow (and I would bet at a young age)... As much as I detest
the society that spawned me, and no matter how many times it slaps me down, I
have a desire to see life as a whole succeed in some way.
But of course there's also another reason, namely: the consequences of doing
such an act. I weigh the weight of the desire against the weight of the
consequences or the result of the action I take. If it's not worth it to me, or
if it's something that might take me from my aims and goals in life, then that
desire isn't worth the time or effort to liberate/act upon.
I think this comes back to the dilemma of the outsider again. Wilson mentions
that outsiders generally act upon their desires for good or ill, gain or loss
whether they be criminals (society's term) or poets/artists/et.al.. (history
has shown that the line between criminals and creatives can be a blurred one
indeed) As an outsider, I have a desire to create my own world, and I do so on
paper/canvas/etc. I assume it's the same for most if not all artists. I also
assume it's the same for poets and writers. But what about those individuals
that have an atrophied creative outlet, and no aims or goals? People that were
never taught that you can channel your imagination to take pressure off of the
""boiler of desire"" so to speak. What do they do? (aside from prime time T.V.)
They try to manifest their desires in the ''real'' world through power
plays/manipulation/coersion/etc. of other beings rather than manipulating
themselves to better ends. And as Barrett alluded to, this is pretty much the
dissipation of desire. Pissing it away, as it were.
People that rape/kill/et.al. (in my opinion) don't have a good grip on the
(rather blurred in the first place) dividing line between fantasy and shared
reality and believe that the only way to relieve their ''boiler of desire'' is
to act basic wants and needs out in the ""real"" world, on other people because
they don't realize the potential of the imagination. I think that this comes
about (again, this is opinion) from an overabundance of desire and pressure
from the world to do something with their lives, and lack of proper education
of the workings of the mind. An overabundance of desire has certianly made *me*
do crazy things before, even when I understood what was happening to me.
My point of all this is that perhaps we should look at the thorny issues of
rape and sex with the kiddies etc. in a ""pre-act"" way, meaning: preventive
maintenance (tho I can see some problems here). Many people slip into an
unconstructive way of life because they don't know any better and they're bored
with what they see as ''all life is''. Show people (young adults especially)
that the boringness of everyday life can be overcome through creative process.
A jaded person, or someone who has nothing to do, and feels as though they have
no outlet for their desires, and no understanding of how to relieve the
pressure, is surely more prone to do something unconstructive than
constructive. At least with the knowledge that there is *some* way out of that
problem, a person has a chance...
Talysman
write in alt.surrealism:
"combined responses to several...
"Talysman wrote:
"> the argument of those enslaved by childporn is that they should
"> be allowed to liberate their desires. but what about the child?
"> is this truely liberating for the child, or merely another form
"> of slavery?
"
""enslaved" by "child porn"? i fail to see how pictures (moving or still)
"and stories can enslave anyone.
one could go back to the religion argument and make the same claim...
but rather than do that, I will simply say that the enslavement here
is to a false image of desire (the belief that what one wants is to
beat off whill looking at nekkid children.)
"i reject the whole notion of "pornography" since i think anything humans do
"is natural for humans to do. in that context any attempt to label
"something as "obscene" or "indecent" is a denial of human reality, let
"alone a denial of human liberty.
I reject the notion of pornography, too, but "childporn" is a special
subset. it is more than just pornography, it is also a matter of
power (as you suggest.) [ and don't forget that I'm just using your
example... ]
the child is not fully informed, and thus cannot make an informed
decision. further, the child is legally and physically at the mercy
of adults, and feels it, and so cannot make a *free* decision.
if it were not for these points, there wouldn't be much point in
debating whether it's appropriate or not, would there?
"is the "desire" for a "Big Mac" a "true" desire? i would say no. the
""true" desire is for nourishment. the "desire" for a "Big Mac" can only
"come about through the manipulation _by others_ of the "true" desire for
"nourishment. i certainly wouldn't "desire" a "Big Mac" if i'd never heard
"of one.
have you heard of the classical (aristotelian) distinction
between need and want? this might be relevant here. to be a true
untainted desire, the feeling must be based on need. a false
desire is based only on a want.
--
"chimpanzees are virtually never particularly
snake-like in the midst of the joy of battle."
Talysman
write in alt.surrealism:
"scot...@earthlink.net wrote:
"> In my view, the body, from its beginning, is wired with the potentiality
"> for "power relationships" almost as strongly as it is wired with the
"> potentiality to experience thirst or sexual desire.
"
"the only thing i think the human body is "wired" for is sensori-motor
"activity, a pattern of physical development which supports higher functions
"like language, consciousness, imagination, etc., and desire (which i
"consider a kind of container term for our drive to fulfill basic functional
"needs, enhanced as we develop a concept of "self" into a life
""aesthetic").
"in other words, in the beginning it's all potential, no essence.
"
"[please elaborate a bit, on how you came to your conclusion, and your
"operative definition of "power relationships".
"
"i consider this a struggle to control -- events, processes or people -- and
"i think it is learned rather than innate.]
I'll just say here that I agree partially with scott: we *are*
hardwired to desire power, but this power is power of self-
determination, the so-called territorial imperative. this
changes from a need (true desire) into a mere want (false
desire) when we falsely believe we can fight our feelings of
helplessness by controlling others.
this is the fascist psychology in a nutshell.
--
YAHWEHOAHEH!!!!
barrett john erickson
> I'll just say here that I agree partially with scott: we *are*
> hardwired to desire power, but this power is power of self-
> determination, the so-called territorial imperative.
i would argue that what you describe as the "power of self-determination"
is simply an extension of our sensori-motor processes when coupled with our
emergent consciousness and imagination and would call this a "will to
define" (determine).
i _do_ consider this our prime "motivator". but it is not the same as will
to "power", in my opinion, since there is no necessary element of "contest"
or "struggle", "winner" or "loser".
barrett john erickson
> one could go back to the religion argument and make the same claim...
> but rather than do that,
thanks.
> I will simply say that the enslavement here
> is to a false image of desire (the belief that what one wants is to
> beat off whill looking at nekkid children.)
>
i still consider what is or isn't a "falsified" desire a problem yet to
resolve. but your later comments on "need" vs. "want" (visceral vs.
intellectual) was the general direction i was heading (although i have no
desire to revisit aristotle).
but i have a big problem with speaking of "enslavement" relative to
(non-living) objects (this includes the concept of "addiction").
> I reject the notion of pornography, too, but "childporn" is a special
> subset. it is more than just pornography, it is also a matter of
> power (as you suggest.) [ and don't forget that I'm just using your
> example... ]
and an example i deliberately chose because it cuts a much finer line
between those who consider "child porn" a "special subset" as you put it
and those who, like myself, see in it a larger issue from a different
perspective entirely.
for one thing, you'll have to explain how the grand masturbator's
interaction with his/her visual aids can be characterized as a "power
relationship". it seems to me that "power" is a relationship (a process)
requiring a minimum of two humans in adversarial opposition.
but when you say...
> the child is not fully informed, and thus cannot make an informed
> decision. further, the child is legally and physically at the mercy
> of adults, and feels it, and so cannot make a *free* decision.
that is, when dealing with the production process you may well be talking
about a power relationship.
but not necessarily.
and whether it is or isn't has little or nothing to do with _what_ is being
created. using "power" over an other to get cake baked, a statement signed
or a widget made (either in a chinese prison or a Flint stamping plant) is
no more or less objectionable to me than exercising "power" over an other
to obtain photographs of a graphic sexual content.
in general, exploitation of a relationship of power can't be detected from
the results alone but only by judging the process from which those results
were obtained.
but more specifically and more importantly to the larger issue:
i must object to the global assumption that a "child" (defined as? age
based no doubt: 10? 14? 17 and 11 months? 18 years minus 1 day? 21 years
minus 1 second?) 1) is not (cannot be?) fully informed, and 2) should be
denied all liberty in matters of sensual pleasure because of his/her
presumed inferior status -- usually defined as the inability to know
"what's best" for themselves -- which of course demands the benevolent
control by others.
this _does_ fit my concept of slavery.
and i certainly object to that inferior status or treatment being
circularly explained or justified in terms of the predatory behavior of
"adults". this is conceptually akin to blaming the rape victim for the
rape.
[and then contrast this with the growing trend in these prudish states of
america to charge 10 year olds -- even 8 year olds -- with murder in
"adult" courts.]
i think age-based double standards (so prevalent in this country) are
prima-facie evidence of a social milieu which is more concerned with
_protecting power relationships_ than protecting _people_ from them.
we charge 10 year olds with murder, while denying 15 year olds sexual
autonomy because the truth is: sensual pleasure can be subversive, while
murder usually reinforces the existing order. the control and manipulation
of the "acceptable" sources of pleasure has become the core tactic of power
(which is mostly economic these days, not political).
this is not to say there is no need for socially based protections from
predators, or even _guidance_ (as in counsel) from elders, where power
relationships do, or can exist. i think this is the necessary basis for
the communities we, as social animals, create. and i believe we _all_ have
responsibility for our social environment.
but a social order which criminalizes sexual behavior of any kind is an
enemy of the imagination.
desire has no age.
power has no imagination.
> if it were not for these points, there wouldn't be much point in
> debating whether it's appropriate or not, would there?
that's exactly the way i see it.
scot...@earthlink.net
A man orders a Big Mac. Bob Ezergailis writes another poem. A new
mother offers the babe her teat. The President unzips his fly. A man
with a briefcase stands in front of a tank. Willy Murphy sings the
blues. A Croat kills a Serb. A thief cuts the throat of a twelve-year
old. On Sunday, in her church, a Spirit Filled Woman begins to jerk and
shake and speak in tongues. There is music playing. I want my body to
move. The singer is a Croat and I don't understand the words. But I
understand. I'm hungry too. I trust those things that make the body
move. Yes.
Desire is a word.
Holy ghost is two words.
I often don't know what words mean. Really.
The Eskimos have many words for snow. They know what it is. It hits
their face.
Desire hits no one in the face. It has no mass. It remains a holy
ghost. If you try to measure it you will be measuring something else.
I may know exactly what you mean. We may share some common
experiences. While I never saw the bum-bo-bees I saw Willy pound on his
piano and sing the blues. You may have not have known the woman with
beautiful hands, but you and I have probably read some of the same
books. We may loosely share a world view that leads to similar
hallucinations and mythologies, so I may know what you mean.
But what does the word really mean? I don't know. It remains a holy
ghost.
Remember, the discussion began suggesting the word might be divided and
then used to make judgements about human behavior in regards to what
might be tolerated and what might not be tolerated. I don't want the
holy ghost involved in that.
elag
brain... and that's the one place where I am free. Internally, I am
constrained only as much as I allow myself to be.
It causes me no guilt if I desire something which is illegal... if I desire
something which is forbidden... if I desire something which is impossible to aquire.
I have a good imagination... anything that I want can be mine if only in my mind.
Noone can/should tell me what to think... they can't police my thoughts in any case...
Should I act on these desires. Yes... but... a qualified yes. I find the
"golden rule" a simple and easy to memorize way of deciding which desires to
act upon:
Treat other people the way that you wish to be treated.
Seems logical to me...
Sure there are grey areas in this... where aren't there...
SEXUAL: how young is too young? One thing I'm certain of, is that adults
should not have sex w/ people who have not gone through puberty, as their
bodies are obviously not prepared for sex.
I do not however see a problem w/ young people of similar ages engaging in sex
play... how else are they going to learn?
Neither do I care what pictures people look at, as this (specific act) affects
noone but the viewer.
After puberty... Love knows no age... people who are compatible should be free
to align themselves as they see fit. It may be wise, however, to consider the
consequences of your actions. Is it worth it? Only you can answer that question...
elag
Talysman
in amazement, I beheld barrett john erickson
<bar...@MagneticFields.org> write in alt.surrealism:
"Talysman wrote:
"> I will simply say that the enslavement here
"> is to a false image of desire (the belief that what one wants is to
"> beat off whill looking at nekkid children.)
[ ... ]
"but i have a big problem with speaking of "enslavement" relative to
"(non-living) objects (this includes the concept of "addiction").
I do, to, which is why I talked about enslavement to an image,
not an object. there has only been one tyrant, ever.
[ ... ]
"for one thing, you'll have to explain how the grand masturbator's
"interaction with his/her visual aids can be characterized as a "power
"relationship". it seems to me that "power" is a relationship (a process)
"requiring a minimum of two humans in adversarial opposition.
I am talking more here about production rather than consumption,
as you later point out. really, the consumer of porn isn't very
interesting. suppose the laws of nature were to change tomorrow
morning so that all child pornography suddenly ceased to exist,
and it was impossible to make more? the consumer of childporn
would simply resort to imagination.
are we going to pass laws against what people can think and dream?
"i must object to the global assumption that a "child" (defined as? age
"based no doubt: 10? 14? 17 and 11 months? 18 years minus 1 day? 21 years
"minus 1 second?) 1) is not (cannot be?) fully informed, and 2) should be
"denied all liberty in matters of sensual pleasure because of his/her
"presumed inferior status -- usually defined as the inability to know
""what's best" for themselves -- which of course demands the benevolent
"control by others.
the best way to judge whether people are fully informed would be to
make them take a test, but this seems more objectionable, to me, than
judging them by age. in any case, it's (usually) accepted that kids
can explore their desires with someone their own age. it's only when
there is a disparity between ages that we should begin to question
whether there's a truely equal relationship.
"this _does_ fit my concept of slavery.
like it or not, children *are* slaves. parents produce children with
an expectation that the children will *do* something for them in
return (chores around the house, fulfill the parents' squashed dreams,
keep the marriage from falling apart, shut up the grandparents...)
it's exactly this I was thinking about: if children are not free, how
can someone justify a sexual relationship (or a financial relationship,
for that matter) between an adult and a child as being free and equal?
the child must always enter such a relationship feeling somewhat at
the mercy of the adult.
"and i certainly object to that inferior status or treatment being
"circularly explained or justified in terms of the predatory behavior of
""adults". this is conceptually akin to blaming the rape victim for the
"rape.
I'm not justifying their status. I am offering the idea of an unequal
relationship between adults and children as "food for thought" for
those adults who think they can pursue some kind of equal relationship
with a child.
"we charge 10 year olds with murder, while denying 15 year olds sexual
"autonomy
I read this as "... denying 15 year olds sexual anatomy".
who here will join me in demanding that 15-year-olds should have
their anatomy restored? BOYS SHOULD HAVE DICKS, GIRLS SHOULD HAVE
PUSSIES!
--
"I don't suffer from insanity. My clothes do."
Andrew Cox
elag wrote in message <36160E7D...@concentric.net>...
>
>Neither do I care what pictures people look at, as this (specific act)
affects
>noone but the viewer.
Not true - Most child porn (for example) is not made willingly by the
participents. By allowing the pictures one legitimises the abuse.
barrett john erickson
my initial impulse (especially in the context of recent posts) is to
ridicule this mercilessly.
but instead i'll simply ask how you can possibly reconcile surrealism with
the assault on the imagination that the moralistic assumptions of this
statement make.
an offense against the imagination is an offense against surrealists.
elag
if you haven't paid anyone for it, if in fact you've downloaded a picture
anonymously, and never harm anyone in any way... then the SPECIFIC act of
looking at child porn harms noone. You yourself would have to decide if it is
harmful to you.
I don't support the MAKING of child porn in any way, nor adults having sex w/
children. I support total freedom of THOUGHT.
barrett john erickson
(left attached below) are in direct conflict.
one can't say that "the SPECIFIC act of looking at child porn harms noone"
_and_ "by allowing the pictures one legitimises the abuse".
these kinds of artificial distinctions combined with a confluence of real
distinctions have permeated this issue in the usa and to varying degrees
around the world.
my points are these:
1) there is no causal link to be found between the product so
moralistically referred to as "porn" and any suspected abuse, whether of
men, women or "children".
2) any _real_ "abuse" that may have occurred (which would take the form of
coercion to overcome personal sensual autonomy -- an offense against the
imagination) should be condemned for what it is, without regard to the
purpose the "perpetrators" had in mind or the sex or age of the "victim".
3) the entire issue of "porn as abuse" seems to me to be a dodge which
allows the existing order to prosecute activities which undermine its
stability (liberated imaginations with sensual autonomy) while avoiding all
dangerous territory (sensual liberty). it is simply argued/assumed that
such material is the result of force not choice.
barrett
--
Dale Houstman
> "for one thing, you'll have to explain how the grand masturbator's
> "interaction with his/her visual aids can be characterized as a "power
> "relationship". it seems to me that "power" is a relationship (a process)
> "requiring a minimum of two humans in adversarial opposition.
> *
In political terms perhaps, but poetically the "grand" (or even the grunt)
masturbator does live in a power relationship, though one which perverts
even his/her anticipations: one imagines a power relation in the fantasy which
lends ambiance to the act, but one is (in effect) under the power of the image.
It is this "perverted" "menage a ?" which enemies (who are most likely spies)
of the act insist metamorphizes into evil; rape, child abuse, etc. It isn't
true
of course, but that's the idea. But one can exhibit all the aspects of power
without a partner. This is why we speak of "mastering one's self" and "getting
a grip on one's self" etc.
> *
>
> really, the consumer of porn isn't very interesting.
*
Maybe maybe not: since porn is a commodity of desire, shouldn't its
purveyors be as multi-form as desire itself? Maybe you mean that the
act of "consumption" itself isn't very interesting as a manifestation of
desire. I think it is probably what might be the pure dead end of desire,
but there are those "trapped" in it (because all the other threads of
their desires have petered out, as it were: they are obsessed) and those
who use it as the slightest of prompts and then have an entire field of desire
quite outside that. I won't name names if you won't...
*
> suppose the laws of nature were to change tomorrow
> morning so that all child pornography suddenly ceased to exist,
> and it was impossible to make more? the consumer of childporn
> would simply resort to imagination.
>
> are we going to pass laws against what people can think and dream?
*
Child porn is a law of nature? But the point is why don't they resort to
their imaginations anyway; it isn't as if that were a missing commodity for
them.
Or is it? The need to have and to hold is stronger in one than others, and
maybe a slick "mag" does it for them. I have nothing against child porn
except for how it is produced, how the children are coerced on the "creative"
side. Would it be a different matter if it were all entirely computer
generated, if
no actual children were ever used? I can't believe that for most enemies it
would
make a lick of difference. So they really are (publicly) against the desire
itself, and it appears they make the "consequences" up to validate their
disapproval.
*
> it's only when there is a disparity between ages that we should begin to
> question
> whether there's a truely equal relationship.
*
True, but when is any relationship truly equal? We are still talking
gradations here,
and it will always be a problem to be addressed one by one. But that is
entirely
too clumsy a process for a large society (imagine how different all this would
be
in a "tribe" of twenty or thirty), so laws are enacted that will be inherently
unjust
at any given moment.
*
> like it or not, children *are* slaves. parents produce children with
> an expectation that the children will *do* something for them in
> return (chores around the house, fulfill the parents' squashed dreams,
> keep the marriage from falling apart, shut up the grandparents...)
*
I think this is a simplification of a very complex relation: parents are as
much "slaves" to their children's desires and to the parents' own hopes
for the child. In a healthy family at any rate. There is a reason that a
normal human adult can feel so tired after just a few hours with a child;
they are "worked" by the child's frenzies. There is no denying that a child
physically is at the mercy of any adult, but for the most part this is not a
aspect which comes into play. Children are the emperors of their domain,
and adults rarely enter into it except as providers.
But all around, I don't think that there is much debate that we (and in
fact most Western societies) inhibit sexual liberty for everyone (not just
children!) and thus
create "abnormal" desires, which are the results of thwarted desires. It is
here that we might begin to address these problems. But that's not going to
happen, if only because (as I said before) the size of our societal base.
Individuals cannot see and hear what is being attended to in every household,
so we enact laws in the hope that it will alleviate our need to do anything
about those unseen (yet imagined) acts. Could this change? And what happens
when all the thwarted American desires suddenly are released? Probably not
much: the Anti-Alcohol laws of the 30's led to the binge drinking america we
have even today. It is the thwarting of desire that leads to its perversion.
And now we find ourselves in the midst of a longer lasting repression of drugs
and sex and cigarettes and soon alcohol again: what will this do to us, when we
haven't recovered from the first
great Prohibition? "Just say No": what a ringing piece of drivel for the
ages...
Dale H
Cadmium Flute
On 22 Sep 1998 18:26:34 PDT, elag <el...@concentric.net> wrote, with
insanity in its loins:
>
>
>Fascinan wrote:
>
>> >"The simplest Surrealist act ... pistol in hand... firing blindly...Anyone
>> who... has not dreamed of... has a well-defined place in that crowd"
>
>> I would severely contest this conception ...
>
>> One either grudgingly accepts the
>> system...or lashes out in a resounding act of frustration.
>> I would personally think that the latter would result in regret from all
>> involved, directly and indirectly.
>>
Cadmium Flute
On Tue, 22 Sep 1998 21:38:27 -0500, "sublight" <subl...@sublight.com>
wrote, with insanity in its loins:
>The simplest Surrealist act consists of jumping out a window, trombone up
>anus, and farting madly, as fast as you can fart into the crowd.....
>
>subterranean light
>http://www.sublight.com/
>
>
>Fascinan wrote in message <19980922202230...@ng115.aol.com>...
>>
>>>The simplest Surrealist act consists of dashing down into the street,
>>>pistol in hand, and firing blindly, as fast as you can pull the trigger,
>>>into the crowd
>