SURREALISM AT WAR WITH ITSELF
Dale Houstman
"Sven" <svenhthisb...@blueyonder.co.uk> wrote in message
news:B5C23A8F.EC89%svenhthisb...@blueyonder.co.uk...
> SURREALISM AT WAR WITH ITSELF
>
> Stop press!
>
> Cairo, Saturday: - The surrealist world was in uproar yesterday, as a
major
> war between its key players threatened to tear the movement asunder.
>
> The war basically consisted of a competition to see who could post the
most
> boring messages.
And surely - four paws down - you beat out all competition. And - added
bonus no doubt - the winning post is not only boring, but it reeks of
self-satisfied inanity. It's generous of you in the extreme, as no one asked
you for it. Such altruism should not go unrewarded: how about if we stick a
grenade in your slavering maw and blow off your wasted headroom? More space
for that recently purchased cognitive bladder.
Oh - an aside to the much underabused Nik: that was a joke!
dmh
Sven
Stop press!
Cairo, Saturday: - The surrealist world was in uproar yesterday, as a major
war between its key players threatened to tear the movement asunder.
The war basically consisted of a competition to see who could post the most
boring messages. These messages, although extraordinarily dull, were posted
with the single intent of causing insult to a fat artist from Canada.
It is thought that surrealism may not recover from this fiasco. Indeed,
there are rumours that it may split into two factions, with the boring
people taking the "surrea" part, and the tedious people making off with the
"lism".
No orgasms were involved in this process.
Further developments are awaited with shrugs.
Sven
> news:B5C23A8F.EC89%svenhthisb...@blueyonder.co.uk...
>>
>> Stop press!
>>
>> Cairo, Saturday: - The surrealist world was in uproar yesterday, as a
> major
>> war between its key players threatened to tear the movement asunder.
>>
>> The war basically consisted of a competition to see who could post the
> most
>> boring messages.
>
>
> bonus no doubt - the winning post is not only boring, but it reeks of
> self-satisfied inanity. It's generous of you in the extreme, as no one asked
> you for it. Such altruism should not go unrewarded: how about if we stick a
> grenade in your slavering maw and blow off your wasted headroom? More space
> for that recently purchased cognitive bladder.
>
> Oh - an aside to the much underabused Nik: that was a joke!
>
> dmh
What an unpleasant person you are.
And you even manage to get another anti-Nik tirade off in the process.
It's just a shame that you seem to waste your cognitive bladder in insult,
when there are many more productive and interesting ways to use it.
"Self-satisfied inanity" - OK, you're welcome to your opinion. I was just
trying a little light-hearted prod at what seemed to be a tedious never
ending battle. At least it showed some creativity, even if it's not good
enough for your scrupulously high standards.
---
Oops! *This* was a boring post! To brighten it up, here's a limerick:
There was a young angel from Warsaw
Whose immersion in lukewarm brown coleslaw
So ignited his passion
For high cabbage fashion
That he's now wearing veg. on the catwalk
brandon...@my-deja.com
with a hose immersed in the glowworm's coal crown!
Slow nights of fashion
tore him a fast cabbage!
She knew a cat wearing a boarwalk for a newspaper!
!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
Sent via Deja.com http://www.deja.com/
Before you buy.
Sven
> Here is an angel tongue for Warszawa,
> with a hose immersed in the glowworm's coal crown!
> Slow nights of fashion
> tore him a fast cabbage!
> She knew a cat wearing a boarwalk for a newspaper!
>
> !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
While destroying simplistic Aramaic texts
Gog And Magog poked retribution in the slithering face of a Sponge Cavity
It retracted and spoke
Forming a small sect with dubious motives
And none of them slept in the bath!
Nikolaus Maack
> It is thought that surrealism may not recover from this fiasco. Indeed,
> there are rumours that it may split into two factions, with the boring
> people taking the "surrea" part, and the tedious people making off with the
> "lism".
I want the "lism" part. I think "lism" would look better on a t-shirt.
"SUPPORT LISM!" "BE LISM!" "INVESTIGATE YOUR LISM!" Etc.
In fact, I might just refer to surrealism as "lism" from now on. It's got
the same hip feel that Kentucky Fried Chicken has, now that they're KFC.
> No orgasms were involved in this process.
Which is a darn shame.
By the way, Sven -- you are an ignorant wallabee who licks his own anus
with a long, pointed tongue! Ha ha, don't take any offense. You see,
that was a joke. Why do people tell me I have no sense of humour when,
clearly, I do? By the way, here's another joke -- I enjoy engaging in
sexual activity with your mother. Oh, I'm full of comedy, I am. They
should stick me in a van with the corpse of Peter Sellers and tour us
around the nation.
> Further developments are awaited with shrugs.
You really, really don't want to know how long this has been going on.
Nik
--
"Reason is and ought to be the slave of passions." -- David Hume
The Nik Maack Art Gallery
http://www.nikart.com
or else go low
signified, as if itself(!) was the signifier, theby creating (or
displacing) the internal tension of the surface structure as contrasted
by Derrida(see"Amos the cookie man"-jacque derrida)over against the
dialectic of itself-ness...ahhhhhhh!
Sven <svenhthisb...@blueyonder.co.uk> wrote in article
<B5C23A8F.EC89%svenhthisb...@blueyonder.co.uk>...
> SURREALISM AT WAR WITH ITSELF
>
> Stop press!
Sven
>> It is thought that surrealism may not recover from this fiasco. Indeed,
>> there are rumours that it may split into two factions, with the boring
>> people taking the "surrea" part, and the tedious people making off with the
>> "lism".
>
> "SUPPORT LISM!" "BE LISM!" "INVESTIGATE YOUR LISM!" Etc.
>
> In fact, I might just refer to surrealism as "lism" from now on. It's got
> the same hip feel that Kentucky Fried Chicken has, now that they're KFC.
Gonna check out da 'lism on da Use-Net with da homies.
>> No orgasms were involved in this process.
>
> Which is a darn shame.
Saves on dry-cleaning bills though.
> By the way, Sven -- you are an ignorant wallabee who licks his own anus
> with a long, pointed tongue! Ha ha, don't take any offense. You see,
No offense taken. It's true. You should try it yourself. I find it
refreshing.
> that was a joke. Why do people tell me I have no sense of humour when,
> clearly, I do? By the way, here's another joke -- I enjoy engaging in
> sexual activity with your mother. Oh, I'm full of comedy, I am. They
> should stick me in a van with the corpse of Peter Sellers and tour us
> around the nation.
They could call it "Death and the Maiden."
I have the same birthday as Peter Sellers. He never forgets to send a card.
>> Further developments are awaited with shrugs.
>
> You really, really don't want to know how long this has been going on.
Ah well, if you're happy with it, that's fine. Enjoy the abuse! What did
you do to deserve such round criticism, by the way? Tell one too many
jokes?
> Nik
Sven
or else go low said:
>
> iT IS NoT the function of the medium to dictate the movement of the
> signified, as if itself(!) was the signifier, theby creating (or
> displacing) the internal tension of the surface structure as contrasted
> by Derrida(see"Amos the cookie man"-jacque derrida)over against the
> dialectic of itself-ness...ahhhhhhh!
Yes. That sort of thing. Over and over again.
("itself-ness"? How passe! The Self as relating to the self, or
self-self-relate-self-selfness, if you please.)
> Sven <svenhthisb...@blueyonder.co.uk> wrote in article
> <B5C23A8F.EC89%svenhthisb...@blueyonder.co.uk>...
>> SURREALISM AT WAR WITH ITSELF
>>
>> Stop press!
Nikolaus Maack
> Gonna check out da 'lism on da Use-Net with da homies.
Breton gets funky on my ass with his chillin' 'lism shee-it.
[Sven licks wallabee rectums]
> No offense taken. It's true. You should try it yourself. I find it
> refreshing.
I prefer the subtle, nutty flavour of a giraffe butthole, myself. The
food has to go all the way down that long spotted neck, which I believe is
the secret to the rectum aroma. When no giraffe's are available, I settle
for a doberman's armpit.
> I have the same birthday as Peter Sellers. He never forgets to send a
> card.
Don't tell the others, but I have the same birthday as Quentin Tarrantino.
This causes me no small amount of pain -- especially since I used to like
his stuff, but grew bored with it. Just like everyone else on earth?
> What did
> you do to deserve such round criticism, by the way? Tell one too many
> jokes?
It's a long list of sinning. Let's see...
1) I defended religion, even though I'm quite opposed to "organized"
religion. Personal religion -- it's mine, and I won't force you to eat
any -- seems sane to me.
2) I pointed out some very blatant similarities between Buddhism, taoism,
and surrealism. For example, many Buddhists talk about perceiving "pure
reality" much in the same way Brandon did recently. Only Brandon was
talking about surrealism -- not Buddhism.
Many people jumped up and down, insisting that there are no similarities.
Then someone quoted Breton talking on CBC radio about how there are good
things in taoism. This led people to say, "Well, sure, surrealism uses
mystical stuff, but they scrape off the mysticism and THEN use it."
None of them can explain how this is done. For example, how would you use
something like a deck of tarot cards or a ouija board "without being
mystical"?
3) I defended Dali. Some here say he isn't a "real" surrealist at all.
Dali was kicked out of the movement -- officially -- however he remains
the best known surrealist none the less. Why is Dali not a surrealist?
Because...
4) I suggested that surrealism isn't entirely based on automatic art
production, and that there are two schools of thought -- some surrealists
put a major emphasis on spontaneity, while others strategically work to
create art that provokes a "dream-like" state in the viewer. Dali, for
example, obviously put a great deal of thought and planning into his work.
I made the mistake of quoting Britannica.com to prove my point -- their
definition of surrealism clearly divides it into two schools. Using
Britannica.com is bad however, because it's not quoting a "surrealist"
source.
Dali isn't a surrealist because he doesn't use automatic art processes.
That and he used religious iconography, which is very bad, for some
reason. Also, Dali liked Freudian imagery -- so did Breton -- only Dali
used the imagery in a way that is bad. Go figure.
5) I played several tricks on the surrealists in this newsgroup, which has
earned me the label of "trouble-maker" and "manipulator".
My favorite joke, which almost everyone took completely seriously, was
when I suggested that if you want to write without being under the
influence of social pressure, you'd have to write total gibberish. No
punctuation or capital letters or sentences or paragraphs or any of that.
Giving into these forces is giving into conformity. The ideal poetry, I
claimed, looks like this:
"jekrhgokl welkriwp ksjfdsq fkds"
...but goes on for fifty pages or so.
6) I tried to suggest that everyone in this newsgroup, including myself,
is irrational. This upsets people. Especially when you quote
psychological studies that demonstrate humans are far less rational than
we would like to think.
7) I suggested we put more emphasis on the personal details of our lives,
instead of merely giving in to "intellectualizing". Talking about our
"thoughts" is rather foolish, given that we're all irrational. Talking
about experience that led to certain thoughts often makes the thoughts
more comprehensible to others. Example: "I hate welfare!" is useless.
"I hate welfare because I used to be on welfare and saw the idiots around
me do stupid things, and I worked my way off of it," is a little more
clear.
People said this was "personalist" bullshit -- despite the fact that there
are clearly surrealist precedents. The surrealists all used to talk about
their highly personal sexual desires, for example. In the end, I think it
was Brandon who said something like, "We have REAL people offline we share
our personal shit with. Why should we share them with you?"
8) Then there was the time I "proved" Dale is an atheist because of his
early relationships with his biological father and his step-father. This
made him very angry. He insists to this day that he is an atheist because
he thought about it a great deal and then had an epiphany. It has
absolutely nothing to do with his biological father leaving the family
home when he was young, and a step-father that Dale finds to be a wuss.
This is a good example of someone trying to ascribe their beliefs to a
"rational" source, when an "irrational" source is just as likely.
9) I'm quite an asshole, at times. Number 8 is a good example of me being
an asshole. I don't play well with others. Or maybe it's more that I'm
always PLAYING with others.
10) I'm trying to sell my paintings and postcards on my website. This is
bad because it's "capitalism". Profit is wrong. While not all good
surrealists are communist, they at least recognize that money is not only
the root of all evil, it is also its branches, trunk, seed, etc.
By the way, how much does Brandon's poetry cost to purchase? Don't ask.
11) I once admitted I was a nihilist, arguing that everything is true and
nothing is true. I won't go into all the details of this belief system,
but it has caused no end of playful mocking.
If I can think of any more reasons I am a terrible person, I'll let you
know. As you can see, I'm completely awful, and cannot be helped. Don't
even bother talking to me. I'm evil.
Sven
>> I have the same birthday as Peter Sellers. He never forgets to send a
>> card.
>
> Don't tell the others, but I have the same birthday as Quentin Tarrantino.
> This causes me no small amount of pain -- especially since I used to like
> his stuff, but grew bored with it. Just like everyone else on earth?
He's only directed 3 1/4 films (or something like that), so there isn't
really that much to get bored with.
>> What did
>> you do to deserve such round criticism, by the way? Tell one too many
>> jokes?
>
> It's a long list of sinning. Let's see...
>
> 1) I defended religion, even though I'm quite opposed to "organized"
> religion. Personal religion -- it's mine, and I won't force you to eat
> any -- seems sane to me.
>
> 2) I pointed out some very blatant similarities between Buddhism, taoism,
> and surrealism. For example, many Buddhists talk about perceiving "pure
> reality" much in the same way Brandon did recently. Only Brandon was
> talking about surrealism -- not Buddhism.
All the isms look the same to me. Darwinism, feminism, fascism...
<snip snop snup>
> 5) I played several tricks on the surrealists in this newsgroup, which has
> earned me the label of "trouble-maker" and "manipulator".
Wicked, wicked man.
<snyp snoep snaep>
> 8) Then there was the time I "proved" Dale is an atheist because of his
> early relationships with his biological father and his step-father. This
> made him very angry. He insists to this day that he is an atheist because
> he thought about it a great deal and then had an epiphany. It has
> absolutely nothing to do with his biological father leaving the family
> home when he was young, and a step-father that Dale finds to be a wuss.
>
> This is a good example of someone trying to ascribe their beliefs to a
> "rational" source, when an "irrational" source is just as likely.
I'm an atheist because I ate too many marshmallows when I was a kid. Still,
I'm proud to be one. A marshmallow, that is.
> 9) I'm quite an asshole, at times. Number 8 is a good example of me being
> an asshole. I don't play well with others. Or maybe it's more that I'm
> always PLAYING with others.
Play with yourself, Nik.
> 10) I'm trying to sell my paintings and postcards on my website. This is
> bad because it's "capitalism". Profit is wrong. While not all good
> surrealists are communist, they at least recognize that money is not only
> the root of all evil, it is also its branches, trunk, seed, etc.
If money is the root of all evil, the best thing we can do is capture it and
store it in prisons called "banks". That'll keep it out of mischief.
<sniplet>
> 11) I once admitted I was a nihilist, arguing that everything is true and
> nothing is true. I won't go into all the details of this belief system,
> but it has caused no end of playful mocking.
I suppose that's fair enough; mocking other people's belief systems is the
foundation of "Western" "society". (I've been hanging around too many damn
anthropologists; they insist on the quote marks).
> If I can think of any more reasons I am a terrible person, I'll let you
> know. As you can see, I'm completely awful, and cannot be helped. Don't
> even bother talking to me. I'm evil.
You don't scare me. I'm thousands of miles away.
Sven
>
>> If money is the root of all evil, the best thing we can do is
>> capture it and store it in prisons called "banks". That'll keep it
>> out of mischief.
>
> all evil". See, that way it makes sense.
> If money were actually "the root of all evil", one would want to keep
> it away from soil and water, unless one desires les fleurs du mal.
Oops, I blathered without thinking. If money were the root of something,
then you would get money trees & money would grow on trees etc. etc.
> cythera
<snip>
> Sven (who sounds a _lot_ like Cadmium Flute), salamander (and maybe
Never heard of the person, but I looked up Deja and you're right, I do.
Excellent! I'm a clone! (Crosses eyes and looks pleased with self.)
> cythera
johnqa...@my-deja.com
cythera <cyt...@my-deja.com> wrote:
> In article <B5C34DA9.ED63%svenhthisb...@blueyonder.co.uk>,
> Sven <svenhthisb...@blueyonder.co.uk> wrote:
>
> > If money is the root of all evil, the best thing we can do is
> > capture it and store it in prisons called "banks". That'll keep it
> > out of mischief.
>
> Umm, excuse me Sven. The quote is, "The love of money is the root of
> all evil". See, that way it makes sense.
> If money were actually "the root of all evil", one would want to keep
> it away from soil and water, unless one desires les fleurs du mal.
>
>
> ---
>
> > > Don't even bother talking to me. I'm evil.
>
> yourself as part of some group that likes you, or at least considers
> you its mascot. Please understand this is not the case, totally
> through your _own_ doing.
> It's not true that "negative attention is better than none". If
> Sven (who sounds a _lot_ like Cadmium Flute), salamander (and maybe
> Massurrealism is where you belong (because like Warhol's groupies,
> you're a copyist) but whatever.
>
> cythera
That I avoid timeless entanglements of name-calling back and forth is
my choice. I acknowledge and respect Nik as a human being and don't
believe him to be devoid of usefulness. Because I don't conform to your
idea, if this is what we should call it, of remaining honest to
surrealism, i submit that i have no interest in such peculiar ideas.
I disagree with his comments often and realize to rebuttle every one of
them, or demean him even if i detest him, is not my desire and a waste
of my time that equates to nothing much gained. When something i feel
is important enough to comment upon, like the maintaining of
misconceptions about surrealism that continue, as in with the recent
list of supposed factoids which were half untrue, i may decide to do
so. Yet, that often proves frivolous and frustrating, to me. If I
desire to express my opinion on such topics as mysticism in an effort
to bring discussion closer in line with that which i feel more honest
to the truth about it, and you, or anyone else, perceives this as Nik-
backing, it is a clear and unfounded _under_sight. As I recall it, you
once thought _I_ was Cadmium Flute, but now it is "Sven". Does this
mean that I am, in fact, none other than Sven?
This calls into doubt the history of a certain tendency to oscillate
about this newsgroup from time to time, through which unknown device
I've yet to realize.
john
johnqa...@my-deja.com
cythera <cyt...@my-deja.com> wrote:
> In article <8nkka0$7jd$1...@nnrp1.deja.com>,
>
> > i submit that i have no interest in such peculiar ideas.
>
It's still Alt.Surrealism, regardless of where it happens to wander.
> But I don't know what this is about, really; I said that you might
> like Nik. Period.
Why I was brought up and in this context is what I am still trying to
understand.
> And you're now referring (and misquoting me in the process) to our
> email correspondence which you accidently posted here months ago.
There was no misqoute, you said the same thing to me you said to Sven,
and yes in private, until i misposted through netscape's
mail/newsreader; this is true. Easy to do if you are compiling email
and reading newsgroups at once.
> Though I realize you may think you're being funny
>pardon me if say I
> don't.
Realize now that I wasn't trying to be.
>And I would prefer that you let it drop.
I thought we may have wished for a little clarification, but if you are
insistent.
brandon...@my-deja.com
> 1) I defended religion, even though I'm quite opposed to "organized"
> religion. Personal religion -- it's mine, and I won't force you to
> eat any -- seems sane to me.
How very trendy of you.
> 2) I pointed out some very blatant similarities between Buddhism,
> taoism, and surrealism. For example, many Buddhists talk about
> perceiving "pure reality" much in the same way Brandon did recently.
> Only Brandon was talking about surrealism -- not Buddhism.
I don't think a Buddhist sees "pure reality" as "objective +
subjective." From my readings and experience I have found that most
Buddhist (or eastern religions for that matter) are trying to escape
the objective world which they don't see as part of "reality."
> None of them can explain how this is done.
We did, you just never listen. A mystic is afraid of the idea
that "chance" events happen, so s/he places the "supernatural" over the
chance event to hide it from him/herself.
> For example, how would you use something like a deck of tarot cards
> or a ouija board "without being mystical"?
Realizing that "Bob the Ghost" didn't point to the L, but that "chance"
did.
> 3) I defended Dali ... Why is Dali not a surrealist? Because...
He premeditated a majority of his work. Freudian Symbolism does not =
Surrealism.
> 4) I suggested that surrealism isn't entirely based on automatic art
> production, and that there are two schools of thought -- some
> surrealists put a major emphasis on spontaneity, while others
> strategically work to create art that provokes a "dream-like" state
> in the viewer.
You're an idiot. Do you ever listen to us? Magritte's processes, blah
blah, blah. It doesn't matter if I tell you or not. You're a fucking
hollow-headed comedian from Canada who wears trendy shoes and is proud
of his "consumerism". Should I start insulting your girlfriend? Will
that make you leave? Why are you here? Idiot. I must say that even the
bitch I work with has one up on you.
> 5) I played several tricks
I never found any onions in my telephone booths.
> 6) I tried to suggest that everyone in this newsgroup, including
> myself, is irrational. This upsets people.
Who did this upset? In fact, I think your proposition that everyone is
irrational is a very rational proposition in itself.
> 7) I suggested we put more emphasis on the personal details of our
> lives, instead of merely giving in to "intellectualizing".
And we told you to fuck off, and you got all upset. So what's the big
deal?
> In the end, I think it was Brandon who said something like, "We have
> REAL people offline we share our personal shit with. Why should we
> share them with you?"
Did you respond? I don't remember. You probably didn't.
> 8) Then there was the time I "proved" Dale is an atheist because of
> his early relationships with his biological father and his step-
> father.
You know Dale, and his father?
> 9) I'm quite an asshole, at times.
No, you're quite the idiot all the time.
> 10) I'm trying to sell my paintings and postcards on my website. This
> is bad because it's "capitalism".
Art can never reach everyday life if you continue to keep it culturally
divided from everyday life.
> 11) I once admitted I was a nihilist
You didn't have to admit this.
Nikolaus Maack
[Who is actually Cadium Flute, who is actually John, who is actually me]
Sven, I bet you had no idea that you are in fact me. Unless you believe
in the one world, one mind theory of mysticism, where we are all
disconnected bits of the god-head. I always thought I was a slice of
god-anus myself, spewing forth divine turds, but what do I know.
Blessed are the weak, for they will have access to my weight-training
program and kick sand in the faces of beach bullies. Blessed are the
ugly, for they will become beautiful once my new sense of aesthetics catch
on. Blessed are the speed-racers...
> All the isms look the same to me. Darwinism, feminism, fascism...
All isms, in the end, become one. Radicalism is conservatism is fascism
is anarchism. Why? Because five people have to organize a group of fifty
people, and in the end this results in an evil bureaucracy that brings the
entire system crashing down.
"Hey all you anarchists! Time to get organized!"
> I'm an atheist because I ate too many marshmallows when I was a kid.
> Still, I'm proud to be one. A marshmallow, that is.
We just had Marshmellow Pride Week up here in Canada.
> Play with yourself, Nik.
Once a day, sometimes more.
> You don't scare me. I'm thousands of miles away.
I could have sworn I slept under your bed last night.
Nikolaus Maack
> john, I like you and am not going to debate this. For one thing, I
> can just imagine the look on some people's faces, like Parry's and
> barrett's, if I do.
I always suspected this was how you worked. It's nice to see it stated
explicitly. "I can't say that! What will Barrett think?" The
intellectual equivalent of constantly checking your make-up in a tiny
hand-mirror.
> Read the old post or not; I'm voting _this_ conversation off the
> island.
I've watched two full episodes of "Survivor", thanks to my girlfriend.
She got into it, became obsessed, and dragged me into it. I have to
admit, I watch it of my own free will now. It's possibly one of the
sickest things I have ever seen in my entire life. It really depresses me
that you see alt.surrealism as a metaphorical equivalent.
"Today, in order to prove you really want that million dollars, we're
going to make you drink your own urine. The person who can drink the most
urine will be awarded immunity. Oh, and you have to blow me. And now I
want you to wrestle naked in a vat of dogshit."
Each week, there's some new torture. And everytime the people find out
about it, they say how "neat" and "cool" it sounds. "Now we have to stab
each other with pointed sticks of Bazooka Joe bubble gum? Cool!" I
suppose when they say, "This game show is a goddamn nightmare. I hate
being here. This is hell," that they edit it out.
I have to go disassemble a tent, now.
Nikolaus Maack
> You're an idiot. Do you ever listen to us?
You're an idiot. Yes, I do listen to you. You're an idiot. But
sometimes it's difficult to take you seriously. You're an idiot. I'm not
sure why though. You're an idiot. Maybe it's because you often come
across as an idiot? You're an idiot. Putting the words around words
camaflouges what I'm saying. Idiot.
>> 6) I tried to suggest that everyone in this newsgroup, including
>> myself, is irrational. This upsets people.
>
> Who did this upset? In fact, I think your proposition that everyone is
> irrational is a very rational proposition in itself.
I posted about how advertising affects all of us. Some of you -- no names
-- seemed to believe this isn't the case. "We're too smart to fall for
that stuff." Which is bullshit. Everyone falls for it. Without
exception. That's why advertising is so evil. It creates a reality we
live in.
I believe it was Cythera who was most vocal about her alleged
"rationality". When I was talking about Milgram's obedience experiments
-- "Shock your fellow subject to death!" -- she said that the people in
the study must have been really stupid. She would never shock anyone to
death, she claimed.
Which makes me roll my eyes in pain. The experiment, in my mind,
demonstrates that we are all possibly monsters. Yes, even Cythera.
Especially Cythera.
"Sure, it affects everyone. But not me, I'm rational."
This is possibly one of the most common defense mechanisms I've ever seen.
"75% of all drivers claim they are above average drivers. But not me, I
really am an above average driver. Many people who drink and drive claim,
falsely, that alcohol doesn't affect their driving skills. But not me --
I really can hold my liquor well. Alcohol really doesn't affect my motor
skills. 75% of all people think they are more "lucky" than others. Silly
fools! Of course, I really am more lucky than most."
And so on. It PAINS me to see someone speak in this manner. If you
really want to chase me off the newsgroup, all you have to say is:
"Sure, advertising affects everyone. But not me. I'm too smart for
that."
>> In the end, I think it was Brandon who said something like, "We have
>> REAL people offline we share our personal shit with. Why should we
>> share them with you?"
>
> Did you respond? I don't remember. You probably didn't.
I think I just rolled my eyes quietly.
>> 8) Then there was the time I "proved" Dale is an atheist because of
>> his early relationships with his biological father and his step-
>> father.
>
> You know Dale, and his father?
I fucked Dale's father in a bathroom at the airport.
>> 11) I once admitted I was a nihilist
>
> You didn't have to admit this.
"Nihilist", despite recent reports to the contrary, is not in fact an
insult.
johnqa...@my-deja.com
cythera <cyt...@my-deja.com> wrote:
> john, I like you and am not going to debate this. For one thing, I
> can just imagine the look on some people's faces, like Parry's and
> barrett's, if I do.
> extra drool, so I'm going to spare us _all_ the inanity.
> Read the old post or not; I'm voting _this_ conversation off the
> island.
>
All right, that's fair enough. I don't want a 'debate' either, whether
anyone is looking or not. I'll chalk it up as my fault, due to this
last week's nights of sleepless hours that could be impairing my
judgement and give you the credit you should deserve, though in my
initial read, as i was on my way to see "The cell", i felt your
statements lent themselves to a different interpretation. Whoever said
usenet wasn't messy at times? Hmph...
barrett john erickson
"Nikolaus Maack" <ac...@FreeNet.Carleton.CA> wrote in message
news:8nlv6c$drq$1...@freenet9.carleton.ca...
> [...]
> >> 11) I once admitted I was a nihilist
> >
> > You didn't have to admit this.
>
> "Nihilist", despite recent reports to the contrary, is not in fact an
> insult.
but, as we've tried to explain many times, it _does_ clearly place you in
opposition to "surrealism" as it exists among surrealists.
-- barrett
BLUE FEATHERS #3 is now available
http://www.MagneticFields.org/blue/
bar...@MagneticFields.org
http://www.MagneticFields.org/
surrealists in minnesota
Sur...@MagneticFields.org
==============================================
"Everything tends to make us believe that there exists a
certain point of the mind at which life and death, the real and
the imagined, past and future, the communicable and the
incommunicable, high and low, cease to be perceived as
contradictions."
...André Breton
==============================================
Dale Houstman
<johnqa...@my-deja.com> wrote in message
news:8nm4pi$pnr$1...@nnrp1.deja.com...
valves...
dmh
Dale Houstman
<brandon...@my-deja.com> wrote in message
news:8nl738$rd0$1...@nnrp1.deja.com...
> Nikolaus Maack wrote:
> > 1) I defended religion, even though I'm quite opposed to "organized"
> > religion. Personal religion -- it's mine, and I won't force you to
> > eat any -- seems sane to me.
>
> How very trendy of you.
>
> > 2) I pointed out some very blatant similarities between Buddhism,
> > taoism, and surrealism. For example, many Buddhists talk about
> > perceiving "pure reality" much in the same way Brandon did recently.
> > Only Brandon was talking about surrealism -- not Buddhism.
>
> I don't think a Buddhist sees "pure reality" as "objective +
> subjective." From my readings and experience I have found that most
> Buddhist (or eastern religions for that matter) are trying to escape
> the objective world which they don't see as part of "reality."
This is true, but we have to explore the main fallacy of Nik's approach to
get anywhere. The discovery of "similarities" between any two items doesn't
mean much. No one is denying that the products of human imagination might
have features that overlap. After all, both books and elephants have "ears"
yet to claim they are the same - except in a humorous manner - is merely
inane. All human attempts to comprehend and manage their sensations will -
of necessity - have correlations, thus to point them out as particularly
pertinent is the work of a cluck. It is the vast body of divergences between
religious thought and surrealism that matters and which forms the basis for
discussion.
>
> > For example, how would you use something like a deck of tarot cards
> > or a ouija board "without being mystical"?
>
> Realizing that "Bob the Ghost" didn't point to the L, but that "chance"
> did.
The fact is almost EVERYONE uses the ouija board "non-mystically" either as
a goof or - as you say - one of a million ways to exploit the vagaries of
chance. Unless Nik can reveal to us a lot of people who are actually running
their day-to-day lives on the "messages" from a ouija board? As for tarot
cards, they can be appreciated in much the same manner, as a goof, or from
an aesthetic viewpoint: many of the cards are quite beautiful and poetic.
Nothing mystical about it.
>
> > 3) I defended Dali ... Why is Dali not a surrealist? Because...
>
> He premeditated a majority of his work. Freudian Symbolism does not =
> Surrealism.
How many times can this be said to Nik before he stops asking the same
question? He doesn't even have to agree with it, but he should be smart
enough to realize the question has now been answered over and over.
>
>
> > 6) I tried to suggest that everyone in this newsgroup, including
> > myself, is irrational. This upsets people.
>
> Who did this upset? In fact, I think your proposition that everyone is
> irrational is a very rational proposition in itself.
Absolutely no one was upset by this. In fact - for the most part - it was
ignored as inane. I think that upset Nik.
>
>
> > 8) Then there was the time I "proved" Dale is an atheist because of
> > his early relationships with his biological father and his step-
> > father.
>
> You know Dale, and his father?
He proved nothing at any rate. He just "said" it. This isn't proof. And - as
William James said - the "reason" behind a particular stance is irrelevant,
it is only the fruits of that position that matter. Thus - we might be able
to claim Breton's entire philosophy was in part the result of his early
childhood experience (in fact isn't everyone's?), but this isn't
interesting, because it it ubiquitous and understood that childhood
experiences are formative. And yet - as I also told Nik to no response -
many people nurtured in very simliar circumstances "mature" in very
different ways. Why? Becaase people (as any mother knows) are BORN with
personalities; there is a biological bedrock for human character that while
not immutable, is real. Biography will never be able to explain any person's
actions or thoughts. And so it is relatively useless, if interesting.
So - wanna bet? - how many weeks will go by before Nik repoises the same
questions, as if he hjad only been talking to his rearend in a mirror?
>
dmh
Sven
> Sven (svenhthisb...@blueyonder.co.uk) writes:
> [Who is actually Cadium Flute, who is actually John, who is actually me]
>
> Sven, I bet you had no idea that you are in fact me. Unless you believe
Oh great, now I've got an identity crisis. Who am I? Someone tell me,
without recourse to philosophy or invective (the difference between the two
appears to be academic in this newsgroup.)
<zzzp>
>> All the isms look the same to me. Darwinism, feminism, fascism...
>
> All isms, in the end, become one. Radicalism is conservatism is fascism
> is anarchism. Why? Because five people have to organize a group of fifty
> people, and in the end this results in an evil bureaucracy that brings the
> entire system crashing down.
Well, if you have to be stuck with an evil bureaucracy, may as well go for
the one that allows you to 1. yodel in public 2. wrestle naked people every
other day 3. piss in the ears of tramps on Sunday afternoons.
> "Hey all you anarchists! Time to get organized!"
Won't work; anarchists are, by definition, deaf.
>> I'm an atheist because I ate too many marshmallows when I was a kid.
>> Still, I'm proud to be one. A marshmallow, that is.
>
> We just had Marshmellow Pride Week up here in Canada.
Gotta be proud about something.
>> Play with yourself, Nik.
>
> Once a day, sometimes more.
I'll assume, for family viewing, that you're playing with your "inner
child".
>> You don't scare me. I'm thousands of miles away.
>
> I could have sworn I slept under your bed last night.
I have a divan bed. Either you're very thin, or you've been doing something
suspicious with my floorboards.
> Nik
>
>
> --
> "Reason is and ought to be the slave of passions." -- David Hume
A man from my town.
Dale Houstman
"cythera" <cyt...@my-deja.com> wrote in message
news:8nms8p$irs$1...@nnrp1.deja.com...
> In article <8nlrg2$8rm$1...@freenet9.carleton.ca>,
> ac...@FreeNet.Carleton.CA (Nikolaus Maack) wrote:
> > cythera (cyt...@my-deja.com) writes:
> > > john, I like you and am not going to debate this. For one thing, I
> > > can just imagine the look on some people's faces, like Parry's and
> > > barrett's, if I do.
> >
> > stated explicitly. "I can't say that! What will Barrett think?"
> > The intellectual equivalent of constantly checking your make-up in
> > a tiny hand-mirror.
>
> perceive him or herself as a more-or-less unnecessary part of a
> system, rather than the reason for the system.
>
> cythera
>
Nik's words are merely amusing. After all, it was his ass that was dragged
back to this group by his UberMom, A.C. There's independent thinking for
you.
And - really - your words do not say you never do anything that you think
Barrett would look askance at, only that you can imagine his response to an
act. And also, you have already had a lengthy "go to" with john, despite any
reluctance you might feel. This proves - to me at least - that you are not
checking your makeup too often.
Finally, at least you have an opinion you feel is worth being hesitant about
now and again: this puts Nik's nihilism to shame.
As for me: I don't even "get" this latest round of stuff with john. I
respect his desire to remain out of the fray that (obviously) maintains the
only real reason for Nik's existence. That I do - at times - feel that a
particular point Nik makes (if not him personally) is worth debating - is a
personal thing, and I think that if the group is supposed to be dedicated in
some way to the idea of surrealism, some argumentation is necessary.
But I really do feel - at this point - that Nik has adequately demonstrated
his unwillingness to engage. The diminishing returns are starting to roll
in.
I used to think that if Barrett and I could only get Nik in a pleasant
little bar and talk with him, some amount of comprehension would emerge from
that off-white hole. But now I think we would be more likely to drive him
out of town, beat his nihilist little ass with a stick, and leave him for
the crows.
dmh
johnqa...@my-deja.com
Lengthy go to?
> Finally, at least you have an opinion you feel is worth being
hesitant about
> now and again: this puts Nik's nihilism to shame.
>
> As for me: I don't even "get" this latest round of stuff with john.
Which part of the round?
>I respect his desire to remain out of the fray that (obviously)
maintains the
> only real reason for Nik's existence. That I do - at times - feel
that a
> particular point Nik makes (if not him personally) is worth debating
- is a
> personal thing, and I think that if the group is supposed to be
dedicated in
> some way to the idea of surrealism, some argumentation is necessary.
Well, what I've already stated is that I do disagree with Nik, and
others, on points, and as you have already witnessed have called him on
some of his errors, intentional or not, yet that sometimes on even the
relevant to surrealism points I either feel frustrated, bored, or that
it's not worth the effort to continue to repeat the same going through
the motions ritual with one person (who may happen to thrive on it).
That isn't necessarily needed to remain dedicated to the idea of
surrealism, I feel. As long as in the balance there isn't too heavy a
stream of misinformation flowing through this newsgroup, I think it's
safe to say most individuals are more than able to seek, and find, what
surrealism is about, and especially through working examples and a
collaborative enviroment.
And if it truly continues to be a concern, i might recommend in
addition to the rest adding a signature to your posts, a la Barrett,
stating something like " Don't listen to the frauds, learn about
Surrealism here at www.___.com"
I mean this sincerely, if you feel it may be of any help. But if you
would like to go from round to round with Nik, or don't, then by all
means, why should I care to stop you?
john
> But I really do feel - at this point - that Nik has adequately
demonstrated
> his unwillingness to engage. The diminishing returns are starting to
roll
> in.
>
> I used to think that if Barrett and I could only get Nik in a pleasant
> little bar and talk with him, some amount of comprehension would
emerge from
> that off-white hole. But now I think we would be more likely to drive
him
> out of town, beat his nihilist little ass with a stick, and leave him
for
> the crows.
>
> dmh
>
>
brandon...@my-deja.com
> Well, what I've already stated is that I do disagree with Nik, and
> others, on points, and as you have already witnessed have called him
> on some of his errors, intentional or not, yet that sometimes on even
> the relevant to surrealism points I either feel frustrated, bored, or
> that it's not worth the effort to continue to repeat the same going
> through the motions ritual with one person (who may happen to thrive
> on it).
I can relate, but at the same time I like to kick him when he's down.
Know what I mean?
brandon...@my-deja.com
the real arguments. I guess the problem is that if I don't throw shit I
get no response at all. Maybe someone could post some Usenet tips on
how to get a better dialog started when communicating with a huge
asshole.
Nikolaus Maack wrote:
> Putting the words around words camaflouges what I'm saying.
Wait a minute. Who is talking about who?
> I posted about how advertising affects all of us.
Do ads affect us? Of course, to some degree. If you remember my only
response to "ads" is that I dislike their participation in consumerism,
and that I feel creating art to manipulate people is rather counter-
revolutionary. Its like I said in the last post, you are
seperating "art" from everyday life, pushing it into the control of the
spectacle, and turning it into a product you can purchase at K-mart.
> I think I just rolled my eyes quietly.
How typically snobby of you. Next time you roll your eyes I want to
hear it!
john adams
cythera wrote:
> In article <8nnd92$4sk$1...@nnrp1.deja.com>,
> johnqa...@my-deja.com wrote:
> > In article <399f0837$0$72525$65a9...@news.citilink.com>,
> > "Dale Houstman" <dm...@citilink.com> wrote:
> > >
> > > "cythera" <cyt...@my-deja.com> wrote in message
> > > news:8nms8p$irs$1...@nnrp1.deja.com...
> > > > In article <8nlrg2$8rm$1...@freenet9.carleton.ca>,
> > > > ac...@FreeNet.Carleton.CA (Nikolaus Maack) wrote:
> > > > > cythera (cyt...@my-deja.com) writes:
> >
> > [...] yet that sometimes on even the relevant to surrealism points
> > I either feel frustrated, bored, or that it's not worth the effort
> > to continue to repeat the same going through the motions ritual
> > with one person (who may happen to thrive on it).
>
> While I agree that Nik thrives on the attention, exploring the less-
> than-innovative-and-daring avenues, in hope of driving home points
> and clarifying them to ourselves and each other ("newbies" and
> sometimes Nik included) isn't a "going through the motions ritual"
> unless you see it as such.
No, I've already stated, again, my position on the balance of
misinformation/information. Refer back to the previous post to see that i
asserted
this, in addition to collaborative work, and surrealist contributions
should do quite well, not even mentioning all of the other available
avenues of inquiry.
>
> I personally find Dale's willingness to go over -- month in, month
> out -- what could be old and dull ground for him, to be extraordinarily
> generous.
>
...
> > That isn't necessarily needed to remain dedicated to the idea of
> > surrealism, I feel.
>
> This is the second time lately that you've written something about
> surrealism as an "idea". Would you please explain what you mean by
> that?
>
Second time, phew. Actually, i responded directly from Dale's use of the
phrase "idea of surrealism". In a word when i do so i describe it as
philosophy.
>
> > As long as in the balance there isn't too heavy a stream of
> > misinformation flowing through this newsgroup,
>
> > I think it's safe to say most individuals are more than able to
> > seek, and find, what surrealism is about, and especially through
> > working examples and a collaborative enviroment.
>
> Well, there's a lot I could say here, but to deal with a small bit at
> a time: which individuals do you mean?
Those that are going to grasp it and relate to its fundamentals in the
first place, or shall I say are somewhat aligned towards it already.
Although i believe it could benefit anyone to care to gain knowledge from
it just as anywhere else, not every 'individual' is going to feel drawn to
its particulars in the same way, and that's natural.
>
> In my 8 1/2 months here, I've seen fewer than ten people, total,
> who've demonstrated an _understanding_ of what surrealism "is about";
> and no one, anywhere, understands all of what it is.
>
> But some of us experience it as more than, and apart from, an idea
> (just as freedom is more than an idea);
Again, see above, and my experience of surrealism I consider as no mere
idea without any form of realization.
> whereas the majority of people
> who come through here and post, don't get it.
> And they could participate in or observe a collaborative environment
> for the next 5 years and still see nothing different.
And they may never. Do you expect to pound it through their skulls to make
it better?
>
>
> > And if it truly continues to be a concern, i might recommend in
> > addition to the rest adding a signature to your posts, a la Barrett,
> > stating something like " Don't listen to the frauds, learn about
> > Surrealism here at www.___.com"
>
> "Surrealism dot _company_"?
>
I don't know.
john
john adams
brandon...@my-deja.com wrote:
You played soccer in jr. high and high school, I can tell.
But seriously, yeah, atleast I think I do...
john
john adams
Dale Houstman wrote:
>
> It seems the "mea culpa" chamber is getting full. Time to turn on the gas
> valves...
>
> dmh
Excellent observation, Dale. Too, too full.
john
brandon...@my-deja.com
> You played soccer in jr. high and high school, I can tell.
Hey man, you're good! Although I stopped playing soccer after my
sophomore year due to a strong hatred for the varsity coach.
brandon...@my-deja.com
Raoul do all the talking:
"Paradoxically (and rather as alchemy discovered sulphuric acid in a
purely serendipitous way), the shift from the magic of language to the
language of magic produced a genuine tool of demystification, namely
the technique of diversion, or detournement. Admittedly Breton never
defined this technique as precisely as the Situationists did later, as
for example in Internationale Situationiste, Number 3 (December 1959):
The two basic principles of detournement are the loss of importance,
and in the extreme case the complete disappearance, of the original
meaning of each independent diverted element; and, simultaneoulsy, the
organizing of another meaningful whole which confers a new significance
upon each of those elements."
---Raoul Vaneigem (J.-F. Dupruis), A Cavalier History of Surrealism, p.
93.
Nikolaus Maack
end-of-summer condensation. And boy are my arms tired.
But it pleased me to no end to see that this weekend the 10,000th post
aimed at me was posted in alt.surrealism.
(brandon...@my-deja.com) writes:
> Since Nik refuses to discuss "demystification" any further I will let
> Raoul do all the talking:
[snip]
What does this mean? I win. I am the most talked about, most
contraversial, most witty, most everything. I own you all.
Do you remember when Andrea Chen -- I am Andrea Chen by the way -- said
that she would push your buttons and make you talk about her and freak out
and dance like little meat puppets? I do this to you all every day.
Every single day. My God, you people spend more time talking about me
than about surrealism. Is it possible we can rename this newsgroup,
alt.surrealism.nik.maack.ate.my.brain?
And so on.
Nik
--
"Reason is and ought to be the slave of passions." -- David Hume
john adams
cythera wrote:
> >
> > > > That isn't necessarily needed to remain dedicated to the idea of
> > > > surrealism, I feel.
> > >
> > > This is the second time lately that you've written something about
> > > surrealism as an "idea". Would you please explain what you mean by
> > > that?
> > >
> > Second time, phew.
>
> Excuse me. What do you mean, "phew"?
It's a term that could be used to express a reflective sigh, perhaps with
emotion of disbelief , doubt, or relief.
>
>
> > Actually, i responded directly from Dale's use of the phrase "idea of
> > surrealism". In a word when i do so i describe it as philosophy.
>
> Well, thank you for the clarification. I found Dale’s phrase exactly
> as you quoted it:
>
Ok.
>
> "That I do - at times - feel that a particular point Nik makes (if not
> him personally) is worth debating - is a personal thing, and I think
> that if the group is supposed to be dedicated in some way to the idea
> of surrealism, some argumentation is necessary".
>
> You’re comparing something Dale said about the group to what you say
> you want to do as an individual in it:
> "[...] yet that sometimes on even the relevant to surrealism points
> > > > I either feel frustrated, bored, or that it's not worth the effort
> > > > to continue to repeat the same going through the motions ritual
> > > > with one person (who may happen to thrive on it). That isn't
> > > > necessarily needed to remain dedicated to the idea of
> > > > surrealism, I feel.
>
That is correct. But are you telling me now that i am anti-collaborative
based on this interpretation of my intent though grammar usage? Technically,
i saw no trouble with phrasing my sentence in that manner.
>
> And so you are suggesting what, exactly; any ideas you’re ready to
> share about a direction for the _group_ to take?
I've _already_ shared my feelings regarding that, and I don't intend to push
for any kind of direction myself which "suits *me* better", of course; why
this dispute over individual/group is brought upon me, i dont know. I fully
embrace the "idea" of freedom, and the group shall go where it goes. . .
>
>
> > > > As long as in the balance there isn't too heavy a stream of
> > > > misinformation flowing through this newsgroup,
> > >
> > > > I think it's safe to say most individuals are more than able to
> > > > seek, and find, what surrealism is about, and especially through
> > > > working examples and a collaborative enviroment.
> > >
> > > Well, there's a lot I could say here, but to deal with a small bit
> at
> > > a time: which individuals do you mean?
> >
> > Those that are going to grasp it and relate to its fundamentals in
> the
> > first place, or shall I say are somewhat aligned towards it already.
>
> Well, how does one determine that?
You are asking me how does one person determine, not only when, but where
they shall arrive at a destination they are unaware of (because they raised
the question in the first place ) within the future. Or more exactly, how
does a person determine that they are curious enough to explore certain
areas they may feel compelled towards - this occurs through intuitive
desire. My comments with the above however was in reference to the fact that
some will and others will not feel driven towards it in the same ways, which
mostly concerns free will and variation.
>
>
> And, what about the people who understand only after many weeks or
> months, or those who don’t know how to articulate what they’ve been
> intuiting their whole lives, and thus will not seem to "grasp it and
> relate to its fundamentals" until the third, or thirteenth, "place"?
>
Yes, what about them? At the third or thirteenth place they are precisely
where they ought to be, I am supposing.
>
> What are some of your ideas for ways of guiding them?
I've already expressed a few of them, if you are asking in relation to this
newsgroup.
Or, do you mean to ask how to guide someone in another kind of enviroment?
>
>
> That you (?) and a bunch of other people apparently don’t much care
> for the way in which Dale and I, as the most vocal writers here, try
> to express in words what we feel, is no surprise to me at this point.
> And so I am going to ask you to take my place for a while – maybe you
> can do better.
>
I don't presume to hold any form of position at all in this group - I am in
as much of a take charge of things place as any other surrealist person, and
shall, I'm afraid, remain there. I most likely would have continued to keep
my thoughts to myself on this, were it not to come about through these past
few posts they way it did, But you'll have to elaborate on what you mean
with the "way in which Dale and you try to express in words what you feel"
portion , "as the two most vocal writers", and how i don't care for it, for
me to comment any further and more specifically. I've expressed how I feel
towards certain aspects already, so no THOSE should be of no surprise to
you, but:
I first sat about to explain away this notion of my being ' too friendly
with the enemy' notion, to use a very loose metaphor, that i, either
correctly or incorrectly, perceived most recently (and in the past) from
you. Now that you question the aspects of my thoughts towards the newsgroup,
as well as my position with surrealism, I of course should voice them to you
and/or others. But please don't mistake it for me just not caring for the
way you, or Dale, express your thoughts here.
>
> Hasta luigi,
> cythera
>
john
john adams
brandon...@my-deja.com wrote:
> john adams wrote:
> > You played soccer in jr. high and high school, I can tell.
>
> Hey man, you're good! Although I stopped playing soccer after my
> sophomore year due to a strong hatred for the varsity coach.
>
>
Ha...well those h.s. coaches can tend to be dicks, can't they...
john
john adams
Nikolaus Maack wrote:
> I spent the weekend at a wedding, camping out in cold Canadian
> end-of-summer condensation. And boy are my arms tired.
>
> But it pleased me to no end to see that this weekend the 10,000th post
> aimed at me was posted in alt.surrealism.
>
> (brandon...@my-deja.com) writes:
> > Since Nik refuses to discuss "demystification" any further I will let
> > Raoul do all the talking:
> [snip]
>
> What does this mean? I win. I am the most talked about, most
> contraversial, most witty, most everything. I own you all.
Ah c'mon, you can do better than that.
john
Steve McDonald
>In article <8nlrg2$8rm$1...@freenet9.carleton.ca>,
> ac...@FreeNet.Carleton.CA (Nikolaus Maack) wrote:
>> cythera (cyt...@my-deja.com) writes:
>
>-----
>>>Read the old post or not; I'm voting _this_ conversation off the
>>>island.
>
>> > cythera
>-----
>
>> I've watched two full episodes of "Survivor", thanks to my
>> girlfriend. [...] It really depresses me that you see alt.
>> surrealism as a metaphorical equivalent.
>
>Read the above grouping of words enclosed within the broken lines,
>and see if you can find the joke. (Not that it's all that hot).
>
>And maybe, Nik, these depressed feelings that you occasionally
>mention are interfering with your life too much now, and should be
>thought about.
>
>cythera
>
>"No man is an island, complete unto himself."
>--John Donne
>
>
>
>Sent via Deja.com http://www.deja.com/
>Before you buy.
I'm not an island. I'm a man who has a peninsula which
constantly changes shape and size depending on my
mood, thoughts and sensory experience. There on the
horizon...I think I see it...the Straits of Labellum.
Down, Polyphemus! Down!
-- Steve M, Atlanta-GA-USA
KnowItAll
Can not!
KnowsItAll
Can too!
Expert
Oh yeah!
Omniscient
Oh yeah?!!
Master
You and what army?!!
Hierarchical
Yeah!!
brandon...@my-deja.com
> But it pleased me to no end to see that this weekend the 10,000th post
> aimed at me was posted in alt.surrealism.
Of course, again you fail to sustain a dialog about the proposed
subject.
Sven
> Nikolaus Maack wrote:
>> But it pleased me to no end to see that this weekend the 10,000th post
>> aimed at me was posted in alt.surrealism.
>
> Of course, again you fail to sustain a dialog about the proposed
> subject.
It appears to me that the subject was Nik Maack.
brandon...@my-deja.com
> It appears to me that the subject was Nik Maack.
Are you implying that Nik Maack has never failed to sustain a dialog
when talking about himself?
Nikolaus Maack
> Ah c'mon, you can do better than that.
This is true, but I was in a rush. I don't always have time to give
people the high quality abuse that they deserve. For example, as I type
this, I'm trying to keep five kittens inside a patched up cage -- the bars
are too big, so they can escape fairly easily -- until my girlfriend gets
back from the pet store with food.
How can I be cruel and deal gently with kittens at the same time?
Sven
> Sven wrote:
>> It appears to me that the subject was Nik Maack.
>
> Are you implying that Nik Maack has never failed to sustain a dialog
> when talking about himself?
I'm saying every dialog with him turns into a dialog *about* him.
john adams
Nikolaus Maack wrote:
> john adams (johnqa...@yahoo.com) writes:
> > Ah c'mon, you can do better than that.
>
> This is true, but I was in a rush. I don't always have time to give
> people the high quality abuse that they deserve. For example, as I type
> this, I'm trying to keep five kittens inside a patched up cage -- the bars
> are too big, so they can escape fairly easily -- until my girlfriend gets
> back from the pet store with food.
>
> How can I be cruel and deal gently with kittens at the same time?
>
> Nik
>
Well, it's certainly something I've always wondered about, i know this much.
john
Parry
> All right, that's fair enough. I don't want a 'debate' either, whether
> anyone is looking or not. I'll chalk it up as my fault, due to this
> last week's nights of sleepless hours that could be impairing my
> judgement and give you the credit you should deserve, though in my
> initial read, as i was on my way to see "The cell", i felt your
> statements lent themselves to a different interpretation. Whoever said
> usenet wasn't messy at times? Hmph...
So how was “The Cell,” or do I even have to ask? The last film I saw was
“What Lies Beneath,” a movie entirely lacking of personality. Is there
anything in current release in NA that’s interesting at all?
-- Parry
-----= Posted via Newsfeeds.Com, Uncensored Usenet News =-----
http://www.newsfeeds.com - The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World!
-----== Over 80,000 Newsgroups - 16 Different Servers! =-----
Dale Houstman
"Parry" <pa...@zxOMITmail.com> wrote in message
news:39A38A...@zxOMITmail.com...
> johnqa...@my-deja.com wrote:
> > All right, that's fair enough. I don't want a 'debate' either, whether
> > anyone is looking or not. I'll chalk it up as my fault, due to this
> > last week's nights of sleepless hours that could be impairing my
> > judgement and give you the credit you should deserve, though in my
> > initial read, as i was on my way to see "The cell", i felt your
> > statements lent themselves to a different interpretation. Whoever said
> > usenet wasn't messy at times? Hmph...
>
> So how was "The Cell," or do I even have to ask? The last film I saw was
> "What Lies Beneath," a movie entirely lacking of personality. Is there
> anything in current release in NA that's interesting at all?
>
just world, the man who made "Forrest Gump" would be pressed beneath stones,
or left to dry in the Mojave, staked to a rotting whale carcass. But dreams
are so sweet...
dmh
john adams
Parry wrote:
>
> So how was “The Cell,” or do I even have to ask? The last film I saw was
> “What Lies Beneath,” a movie entirely lacking of personality. Is there
> anything in current release in NA that’s interesting at all?
>
> -- Parry
>
The Cell was created by some first-time script writer, while the director
was "that guy" who did many of the alt. rock videos we are so familiar with
of recent times.
I ended up giving the movie an A- in my mind (and in saying A-, i mean 90 or
91, no more). The visual imagery was strong, and overall it was more or less
dazzling and dream-like between rough spots (not so rough mind you). One
reason i gave it a low A was that in certain sequences the rock video flair
shown through, and i found myself asking myself "wait, isn't this an R.E.M
video set?" one moment, and then during a few others moments thinking "and
now in perfected duplication, Tool and Marylin Manson video gimmicks...".
In this day of Hollywood big blockbuster whimpers though, The Cell comes
crawling out of the old trodden hole without the entirelly stinchful glaze
usually so accompanied.
john
john adams
john adams wrote:
And i forgot to mention that the next day was the first time i recall having any
kind of nightmares within the last several years -- not because i found it
scarey, but if you see it, well then you'll realize why it was due in part to
the movie's plot.
So, now im curious, how was the tape? I started listening to your's in the car
again, and enjoy the nice variety. With mine i recall i opted for less variety
of genre and more of a condensation of romance, dream, and slow-motion skating
across white pastries and cream.
john
Parry
>
> "Parry" <pa...@zxOMITmail.com> wrote in message
> news:39A38A...@zxOMITmail.com...
> > johnqa...@my-deja.com wrote:
> > > All right, that's fair enough. I don't want a 'debate' either, whether
> > > anyone is looking or not. I'll chalk it up as my fault, due to this
> > > last week's nights of sleepless hours that could be impairing my
> > > judgement and give you the credit you should deserve, though in my
> > > initial read, as i was on my way to see "The cell", i felt your
> > > statements lent themselves to a different interpretation. Whoever said
> > > usenet wasn't messy at times? Hmph...
> >
> > "What Lies Beneath," a movie entirely lacking of personality. Is there
> > anything in current release in NA that's interesting at all?
> >
> just world, the man who made "Forrest Gump" would be pressed beneath stones,
> or left to dry in the Mojave, staked to a rotting whale carcass. But dreams
> are so sweet...
>
> dmh
Aye, that’s the fellow. Haven’t seen Forrest Gump, but he did Roger
Rabbit and other movies I didn’t care for. I went to see “What Lies
Beneath” only because it’s about the only movie in-theatre which was
made for an adult audience (unless you count that geriatric astronaut
flick). “What Lies” is an okay ghost story which could have been a
terrific movie had it been directed by Roman Polanski.
Parry
>
> > Parry wrote:
> > > “What Lies Beneath,” a movie entirely lacking of personality. Is there
> > > anything in current release in NA that’s interesting at all?
> >
> > was "that guy" who did many of the alt. rock videos we are so familiar with
> > of recent times.
> > I ended up giving the movie an A- in my mind (and in saying A-, i mean 90 or
> > 91, no more). The visual imagery was strong, and overall it was more or less
> > dazzling and dream-like between rough spots (not so rough mind you). One
> > reason i gave it a low A was that in certain sequences the rock video flair
> > shown through, and i found myself asking myself "wait, isn't this an R.E.M
> > video set?" one moment, and then during a few others moments thinking "and
> > now in perfected duplication, Tool and Marylin Manson video gimmicks...".
> > In this day of Hollywood big blockbuster whimpers though, The Cell comes
> > crawling out of the old trodden hole without the entirelly stinchful glaze
> > usually so accompanied.
> >
> > john
>
> And i forgot to mention that the next day was the first time i recall having any kind of nightmares within
> the last several years -- not because i found it scarey, but if you see it, well then you'll realize why it was
> due in part to the movie's plot.
Going by your thumb’s up, I’ll probably catch the movie this week. Man,
I hope that’s your thumb.
> So, now im curious, how was the tape? I started listening to your's in the car again, and enjoy the nice
> variety. With mine i recall i opted for less variety of genre and more of a condensation of romance,
> dream, and slow-motion skating across white pastries and cream.
>
> john
Didn’t I write to you about the tape? It’s lovely stuff. Your
description fits the music rather well. I was actually surprised by the
genteelness of the music -- nocturnal, sombre-faced and minutely
detailed as Delville’s “Madame Stuart” -- which was pretty consistent
except for that monolith of abrasion by Mogwai. The John Sims track had
a late 70’s feel like Eno should have produced it, I love any music with
electronic squeals that trigger images of leaves falling into a
whirlpool; Difference Engine with a tempo receptive to subtle emotional
changes; the modern primitivism of Super 5 Thor and others; pop
melodies, contemplative electric guitar, and more. At some points, it
occurred to me you might like such groups as Opal (Kendra Smith) and Yo
La Tengo (or, more luminous, the late Nick Drake). If I had to pick a
favorite from the bunch it would probably be Trash Can Sinatras -- loose
and lush, a sound with lots of space for things to happen in, wandering.
So thanks again, I hope you got as much out of the tape I sent. Let me
know if you get your hi-fi set up for a trip down vinyl lane. You
haven’t experienced the player piano until you’ve heard Conlon
Nancarrow!
john adams
Parry wrote:
Yes, it's just a big 'thumbs up', that's all, no worries.
I would probably recommend seeing it to someone if only for the attention it gave toward the dream world, if you
will, and some of the interesting imagery and happenings-ons. Not every hollywood production is willing to press the
borders a little with that of the 'strange' realm. Although, like i say it reminded me much of certain m. mansun and
tool videos, and perhaps even a little Dali.
>
>
> > So, now im curious, how was the tape? I started listening to your's in the car again, and enjoy the nice
> > variety. With mine i recall i opted for less variety of genre and more of a condensation of romance,
> > dream, and slow-motion skating across white pastries and cream.
> >
> > john
>
> Didn’t I write to you about the tape? It’s lovely stuff. Your
> description fits the music rather well. I was actually surprised by the
> genteelness of the music -- nocturnal, sombre-faced and minutely
> detailed as Delville’s “Madame Stuart” -- which was pretty consistent
> except for that monolith of abrasion by Mogwai. The John Sims track had
> a late 70’s feel like Eno should have produced it, I love any music with
> electronic squeals that trigger images of leaves falling into a
> whirlpool; Difference Engine with a tempo receptive to subtle emotional
> changes; the modern primitivism of Super 5 Thor and others; pop
> melodies, contemplative electric guitar, and more. At some points, it
> occurred to me you might like such groups as Opal (Kendra Smith) and Yo
> La Tengo (or, more luminous, the late Nick Drake). If I had to pick a
> favorite from the bunch it would probably be Trash Can Sinatras -- loose
> and lush, a sound with lots of space for things to happen in, wandering.
> So thanks again, I hope you got as much out of the tape I sent. Let me
> know if you get your hi-fi set up for a trip down vinyl lane. You
> haven’t experienced the player piano until you’ve heard Conlon
> Nancarrow!
>
> -- Parry
Ah, excellent descriptive analysis.The trash can sinatras portion was pooled from a tape of rarities I have (though
sweltering in the texas heat for the last 2.5 yrs. in my black car it continues to remain in constant rotation of
play), which i've come to feel contains 8 or 9 songs ranking as the best of their material, or perhaps among the
best. I'm pleased that you liked the comp., and no i didn't receive an email regarding it - hopefully it isn't due to
my email server. I'd hate to think I've been failing at the oppurtunity to reply to messages here and there because
they never completely made their way.
You mentioned Opal, and i do have one of their cd's (not sure if there were many others - it's called 'happy
nightmare baby'), and i believe 'they' evolved into Mazzy Star with the arrival of Hope Sandoval's sexy voice (and
sexier melancholy buttocks), and that is actually why i bought it. As for Yo La and Nick Drake, I'm only familiar
with a few songs from each. Yes, super 5 thor is deceptively primitive at first ear, yet sensitive, and haunting too
(the time warped guitar feedback seems to help with that). Mogwai can tend to vary in their sound and not all of it
strays into a tangent of exploding guitar noises crescendoing over several minutes time (there is actual singing from
time to time even), yet it seems to stay true to its 'ethereal' mission.
Anyway, interested to find out just who this Conlon Nacarrow cat is all about...
Vinyl lane is now open, although my cd burner has probably seen its final days, so ill be sticking to tape for now.
john
Parry
> no i didn't receive an email regarding it - hopefully it isn't due to
> my email server. I'd hate to think I've been failing at the oppurtunity to reply to messages here and there because
> they never completely made their way.
It’s just as likely I composed the message in my head and forgot to
actually type it out. On the other hand, I’ve sent out e-mail before
which pulled a disappearing act.
> You mentioned Opal, and i do have one of their cd's (not sure if there were many others - it's called 'happy
> nightmare baby'), and i believe 'they' evolved into Mazzy Star with the arrival of Hope Sandoval's sexy voice (and
> sexier melancholy buttocks), and that is actually why i bought it.
The other Opal I know is “Early Recording,” which is even more
introspective and crepuscular than “Happy Nightmare.” Kendra Smith was
the group’s front; she started in The Dream Syndicate and now records
solo.
> As for Yo La and Nick Drake, I'm only familiar
> with a few songs from each.
Yo La Tengo have been around for some time; I prefer the later stuff for
its variety. Drake was one of my faves -- particularly the lush “Bryter
Layter” and the sparse “Pink Moon” -- with his uncanny voice and
evanescent music. Advertising executives, plundering pop history for
evocative sounds, recently used one of his tracks in a car commercial.
Very strange to hear a piece of music kept so hidden for decades
suddenly pushed to the fore of mass media. (And I swear I heard a
snippet of Fred Frith’s “Technology of Tears” in a Merrill Lynch ad.)
> Yes, super 5 thor is deceptively primitive at first ear, yet sensitive, and haunting too
> (the time warped guitar feedback seems to help with that). Mogwai can tend to vary in their sound and not all of it
> strays into a tangent of exploding guitar noises crescendoing over several minutes time (there is actual singing from
> time to time even), yet it seems to stay true to its 'ethereal' mission.
> Anyway, interested to find out just who this Conlon Nacarrow cat is all about...
Nancarrow wasn’t from the world of pop music (I think he’s deceased
now). One might situate him as a modern composer with some jazz
influence. He composed for the player piano, which allowed him to do
remarkable things like have two voices playing simultaneously but at
different tempos. His “X Canon” (#21) begins with a bass voice playing
at a slow tempo and a treble voice playing 37 notes/second; the speed of
the voices change, with the treble decelerating and the bass speeding up
to 111 notes/second. The sound of the piano is familiar, but what you
hear is humanly impossible to play -- it’s a unique listening
experience.
> Vinyl lane is now open, although my cd burner has probably seen its final days, so ill be sticking to tape for now.
Yippee. I’ll sandpaper the grime off the needle and see where it points.