STAINS
Nikolaus Maack
months ago. She says the English word for the name of her
language is Splotch. Brenda is not entirely sure her language
works, as she's the only one who can speak it. Seeing as how I'm
her older brother, she decided to test Splotch out on me.
Yesterday, in the mail, I received a novel of hers entirely
written in Splotch. The novel looked suspiciously like a bundle
of bar napkins held together by a rubber band. Brenda's text was
an assortment of colourful stains. As I flipped through her book,
it didn't make a heck of a lot of sense. The characterization was
weak, the plot was thin, and the text kept making my hands
sticky.
The book is all about a shepherd who gives up his flock in order
to pursue a career as a professional disco dancer. He falls in
love with a porn star, and they are married. Unfortunately, he
misses the solitude and peace that being a shepherd gave him, so
he leaves his wife. Returning to his former life, he discovers
that all the sheep have been slaughtered.
Once I finished the book, I picked up the phone and gave Brenda a
call. She lives in Winnipeg in a hospital for the excessively
fashionable. It's a secret installation run by the Canadian
government. Anyone who shows too much awareness of fashion is
rounded up and locked away. Brenda somehow knew that exposing her
navel and wearing pants that came down just past her knees was
going to be really big look in five years. Unfortunately, she was
a little too ahead of the times. The cops grabbed her.
Now she's only allowed to wear a bright orange jumpsuit and
sandals. Brenda doesn't mind too much. Mostly she misses her shoe
collection. When I visit her, I sneak her in a few pumps and the
occasional blouse. What I bring her is almost immediately found
and confiscated. Still, it makes her happy.
"Brenda," I said, "I got your book, and I hate to tell you this,
but it's not very good. The shepherd character is weak, and I
hate his uncle, the drug-addict gardener."
"Shepherd? Drug-addict? What are you talking about?"
It turned out that you don't read Splotch with your eye, but with
your nose, inhaling the scent of each particular stain. The book
is actually all about a German mime who gets lost inside an art
gallery, and learns to love again thanks to the teachings of a
blind security guard. The German mime becomes an English
professor at a community college, where he meets a piano tuner
and marries her.
The book is absolutely brilliant. I wish I'd written it.
Nik
--
"I dote on myself. There is a lot of me, and all so luscious." -- Whitman
The Nik Maack Art Gallery
http://www.nikart.com
Laura
Nik, you're work always gives me a giggle. I love this idea of a
book written in Splotch on bar napkins and so on. Very neat.
Laura, lacking in good descriptors.
Sven
That's nothing. My brother (who is ten years my junior and has just learned
to drive a truck) invented a language called Crinb. "Go on then," I said,
challenging him as we sucked potatoes in his luxury dive in a flea-pit in
Dundee. "Talk to me in this 'Crinb'."
"What would you like me to say?" he said, talking out of a small garage
entrance in this side of his head (as is his wont). He spat pulped potato
at a passing Beatnik.
"Hey, man, my head, man," said the Beatnik. "Quit messing with it, man,
that's my head and, like, you're messing with it and it's, like, mine. My
head. Man."
"Insult him," I urged my brother. "Insult him in Crinb!"
My brother nodded. The Beatnik, merely being a feeble plot device with no
depth of character, stood entirely still and waited.
My brother took a deep breath. We waited.
We waited a long time.
Outside, the leaves fell from the trees. Children passed by on bicycles.
Night became day became night became day. Christmas decorations came and
went. An elephant rampaged through town, destroying a series of proposed
Starbucks outlets, before being eaten by a tiny man with a mouth the size of
Crete.
Still we waited.
"Hey, man," said the Beatnik, now with greying hairs and a worried
expression. "Do I, like, get to go yet?"
Still my brother waited.
Outside, technology began to progress. Computers and electricity gave way
to cybernetics, gene-puters and micro-nerve impulses. Man gradually evolved
into a super-human, genetically perfect organism with telepathic powers and
the ability to fly. Disease was eliminated, as was hunger, although nobody
could do anything about Rasputin, who was clinging to the Eiffel tower and
demanding bread.
"Bread, I say!" caterwauled Rasputin across the North Sea. "Bread, damn
you!"
I began to weary of this thousand-year pause. The Beatnik was looking at my
brother in askance; my tea was cold. Never mind that, my tea had evolved
into a sort of soup that was already discovering literature and building
factories.
"Listen, brother," I said, for I had long ago forgotten his name. "When are
you going to talk some Crinb so we can all go home?"
He didn't move.
I prodded him. I turned to the Beatnik in amazement.
"He's quite turned to stone," I said.
The Beatnik shuffled his feet. "Better be off then," he said, and wrapped
his warm woollen woman about him for comfort.
"Wait!" I said. He paused.
Seconds passed. I lowered my hands. "It's okay," I said. "Thought I was
about to sneeze."
Sven
> In article <8p8u04$7o5$1...@freenet9.carleton.ca>,
> ac...@FreeNet.Carleton.CA (Nikolaus Maack) wrote:
>
> Celebrating 3 years of irrelevant BULLSHIT.
Yay!
It's now my birthday. September 8th: I share it with Peter Sellars, an
honour, if you ask me. I'm either 46 or 39, depending on the direction that
the light hits my wrinkles. To celebrate, I'd like everyone to join me in a
big bath.
http://www.jerichocosmetics.co.il/bathsalts.htm
Yup, that's right. All of us, together. We can sort out all our little
difficulties. It'll all seem so silly when that Jericho relaxation hits
your bones. Mmm. Jericho.
>> My sister Brenda...
Yup, she's welcome.
Mmm.
Dale Houstman
"cythera" <cyt...@my-deja.com> wrote in message
news:8p92dk$luf$1...@nnrp1.deja.com...
> In article <8p8u04$7o5$1...@freenet9.carleton.ca>,
> ac...@FreeNet.Carleton.CA (Nikolaus Maack) wrote:
>
> Celebrating 3 years of irrelevant BULLSHIT.
Oh don't be too harsh. IF this were a piece for the junior high newspaper,
the writer would have a reputation as a real wing-nut, and would be the
center of the soon-to-fade-into-corporate-living "arty" crowd, half of which
would be emulating (or attempting to emulate) a vague Beat persona, and half
of which would be always on the recovery trail from alcohol, glue, or mere
skin mutilations. If the writer were smart - of course - he would realize
the flaccidity of his "style" in time to hop into a decent living behind a
Softi-Top counter. Thus, one only has to imagine the creator of such stunted
sentences as much younger, and their insipidness roughly shines with
half-baked "promise."
dmh
> Sent via Deja.com http://www.deja.com/
> Before you buy.
Laura
> For that to happen, some people need to study surrealism. Then
> possibly the group can sustain interesting conversations.
>
Do you really believe that we should all bury our noses in books about
surrealism before any of us could possibly have (and maybe enjoy) a
conversation about surrealism?
How many books does one have to read before they are qualified enough
to hold a conversation about surrealism, or to know enough about it to
write a surrealist type work?
Or was this a jab at one person in particular?
I haven't read much on surrealism at all. I'd be the first to admit that I
know
extremely little about surrealism, but I don't think that I should suddenly
drop
out of existance and not attempt to talk to you and the others for fear that
what I say might be uneducated or boring.
I've enjoyed many of the posts here, including yours. I have read things
that
you and the others have created and loved them.
For interests sake, I have a question, and please believe me it is sincere.
Do
you (and anyone else here that cares to answer) feel that someone who knows
absolutely nothing of surrealism, never heard a peep about it, could produce
a
surrealist work, think like a surrealist, or carry out some type of
surrealist action?
Anyway, I realize all of this is futile because it's all about Nik, and we
all know
that he is the longest running topic in here. If that topic were to die,
there would
be no alt.surrealism.
I just felt your comment brought up some important thoughts.
Laura
barrett john erickson
"Laura" <or...@gurlmail.com> wrote in message
news:Fi6u5.2499$dr4....@news1.rdc1.ab.home.com...
> cythera said:
> > For that to happen, some people need to study surrealism. Then
> > possibly the group can sustain interesting conversations.
> >
>
> Do you really believe that we should all bury our noses in books about
> surrealism before any of us could possibly have (and maybe enjoy) a
> conversation about surrealism?
the foundation for cythera's statement is better interpreted as:
"some people have to learn to acknowledge their ignorance on the subject of
'surrealism' and stop insisting that ignorance is just an alternative form
of knowledge."
[ the "personalists" insist that "surrealism" is _whatever_ they decide it
is and that it's 80 year history and the perspectives of actual surrealists
meeting regularly in many cities around the globe are irrelevant. the
"personalists" assert that they alone define "surrealism" at any given
moment as anything they want it to be at that specific moment. ]
> How many books does one have to read before they are qualified enough
> to hold a conversation about surrealism, or to know enough about it to
> write a surrealist type work?
none. one just needs to be interested in exploring the subject openly and
able to learn from those explorations.
nearly everyone comes to their first discussions or readings about
"surrealism" with misconceptions that have formed over many years of
exposure to the abuse that word suffers daily. its a consequence of the
"Dali-as-gateway" syndrome that Dale talks about.
the most significant difference between the "personalists" and others, who
may actually turn out to be surrealists, is that the "personalists"
arrogantly cling to their ignorance when challenged.
> Or was this a jab at one person in particular?
>
> I haven't read much on surrealism at all. I'd be the first to admit that
I
> know
> extremely little about surrealism, but I don't think that I should
suddenly
> drop
> out of existance and not attempt to talk to you and the others for fear
that
> what I say might be uneducated or boring.
>
> I've enjoyed many of the posts here, including yours. I have read things
> that
> you and the others have created and loved them.
>
> For interests sake, I have a question, and please believe me it is
sincere.
> Do
> you (and anyone else here that cares to answer) feel that someone who
knows
> absolutely nothing of surrealism, never heard a peep about it, could
produce
> a
> surrealist work, think like a surrealist, or carry out some type of
> surrealist action?
"surrealist" isn't an attribute to be found in the "work" or "action", it is
a descriptive term _applied to a human process_ -- the creative exploration
of a liberated imagination. it is this exploration and the perspectives
brought to it and formed from it that determines the suitability of that
label.
so yes, even someone totally ignorant of surrealist history and unaware of
its current situation around the world could be called a "natural
surrealist" (i'd even argue that we're all born "natural surrealists" but
are soon wrestled into shameful submission, betrayed by those we depend upon
for sustenance).
but, it needs to be said that such a "natural surrealist" could never deny
that ignorance and still be thought of as a "surrealist", since to do so is
to deliberately place oneself outside "surrealism" _as it exists_ -- i.e.,
to _choose_ not to be a "surrealist".
in fact, taking this another step, those who proclaim "i am not a
surrealist" are far more likely to be defendable as "qualifying" for the
label "surrealist" than those who adopt the label but deny its meaning.
-- 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
==============================================
Nikolaus Maack
> "some people have to learn to acknowledge their ignorance on the subject of
> 'surrealism' and stop insisting that ignorance is just an alternative form
> of knowledge."
I think some people (ie. you) have to recognize that their definition of
surrealism is but one of many approaches. If surrealism is about letting
go of conscious impulses and chasing the dream which is more real than the
waking world, clearly not everyone is going to come back with the same
dream. If they all did, I'd be very suspicious.
You seem to regularly complain that people aren't following your specific
plan on how they should behave without societal constraint. See any irony
in that?
"Be free like me! Here are the rules! Follow them and be free!"
> the most significant difference between the "personalists" and others, who
> may actually turn out to be surrealists, is that the "personalists"
> arrogantly cling to their ignorance when challenged.
While the so called real surrealists cling to their "tradition" that is
supposedly 80 years strong, and thus fail to explore because they're
following those that came before them, instead of recognizing that each
age is a new one, each individual is a new person. You can't read every
word Andre Breton wrote and become him and then progress to something
beyond him. Your brain does not work that way.
If you're going to be Free, you can't be a free extension of Andre Breton
and all the other surrealists. You have to be a free Barrett, a free
Cythera, a free Nik.
> "surrealist" isn't an attribute to be found in the "work" or "action", it is
> a descriptive term _applied to a human process_ -- the creative exploration
> of a liberated imagination.
What do you make of Sven's comment then, about surrealist processes? If I
sit down and let loose my subconscious and come up with the image of a man
sitting in a chair, was that a surrealist process? If I draw
automatically, with a "liberated imagination" and what I end up with is a
man sitting in a chair, did I just engage in "surrealist" behavior?
Don't you find it odd that a lot of "automatic" texts all have the same
look, feel, flavour? It's almost like everyone knows what a "real"
automatic text looks like, and subconsciously AIMS for it.
> in fact, taking this another step, those who proclaim "i am not a
> surrealist" are far more likely to be defendable as "qualifying" for the
> label "surrealist" than those who adopt the label but deny its meaning.
Funny, some Buddhists say the same thing. If you meet someone on the
street and he says, "I am the buddha," then you know he is not the real
buddha. To quote Monty Python -- please forgive me -- "Only the real
messiah would say he's not the messiah!"
All of that strikes me as a pretentious load of flaming dogshit -- which I
suspect is why Monty Python was making fun of the attitude in the first
place.
Sven
> In article <B5DDF1A8.11E66%svenh.this...@blueyonder.co.uk>,
> Sven <svenh.this...@blueyonder.co.uk> wrote:
>> cythera wrote:
>>
>>> In article <8p8u04$7o5$1...@freenet9.carleton.ca>,
>>> ac...@FreeNet.Carleton.CA (Nikolaus Maack) wrote:
>
>> It's now my birthday.
>
> Happy birthday.
Thank you. I'm 27. (Although a lady is allowed to lie about her age.)
>> To celebrate, I'd like everyone to join me in a big bath.
>
>> http://www.jerichocosmetics.co.il/bathsalts.htm
>
>> Yup, that's right. All of us, together. We can sort out all our
>> little difficulties.
>
> For that to happen, some people need to study surrealism. Then
> possibly the group can sustain interesting conversations.
No; I don't think so. For that to happen, people need to be tolerant, and
not to take themselves too seriously.
I think Laura said a lot that I agree with in another response to this post.
> ---
> I'm curious about you and some of the other people who write here:
> are there any books you've loved that are by, or about, actual
> surrealists?
I don't think so. I've certainly never read anything that was by a
surrealist knowing that that person was so.
> What have you read so far?
You mean by surrealists, or just in general? You mean books that I enjoyed,
or just books suitable for debate?
I haven't bought books in ages due to budgetary restrictions (I tend to buy
*lots* of books at once & it gets expensive), but I'm going to have to give
in soon and do so. I prefer fiction and imagination to biography, though.
If I were reading about surrealism, I would probably read about the whole
movement rather than any one individual.
Any good fiction that you or others can recommend would be considered.
You seem to be challenging me, although that's just the impression I get.
You asked me earlier if I had read the text at some web sites that were
recommended. I have. However, I found it quite dry.
I am more interested in the creative process surrounding surrealism than the
history of the movement itself.
> And your favorite artists: what do you love about their work, and
> maybe them as people.
Again, I had a look at some of the sites suggested. Among those that
appealed to me were Peter Armstrong, Remedios Varo and Ted Babcock, but it's
an ongoing investigation.
I've redecorated my living room and need some nice paintings for it. I
favour clear, uncluttered images with strong (not vibrant) colours. If
anyone has any suggestions along these lines, I would be very grateful.
> I'll start. I love Poe, and by Alfred Jarry, _Visits of Love_.
> Leonora Carrington's art.
Poe's good, although I've only read the "Purloined Letter" and "The Pit and
the Pendulum". Oh, and "The Raven" came up on another ng, and I realised
that I'd read that years ago. It's funny how ideas & feelings insert
themselves into your mind, but you forget the specifics of the work itself.
Parry
>
> cythera said:
> > For that to happen, some people need to study surrealism. Then
> > possibly the group can sustain interesting conversations.
> >
>
> Do you really believe that we should all bury our noses in books about
> surrealism before any of us could possibly have (and maybe enjoy) a
> conversation about surrealism?
Yes. Surrealism without books is like a model airplane without glue or
the MIR Station without space. That is, when it’s not like sniffing
model airplane glue in the MIR Space Station.
> How many books does one have to read before they are qualified enough
> to hold a conversation about surrealism, or to know enough about it to
> write a surrealist type work?
Depends on the person. Lautreamont never heard of surrealism yet wrote
its most brilliant work.
> Or was this a jab at one person in particular?
Cythera’s comment could apply to several posters, most of whom stop by
just long enough to complain about everything.
> I haven't read much on surrealism at all. I'd be the first to admit that I
> know
> extremely little about surrealism, but I don't think that I should suddenly
> drop
> out of existance and not attempt to talk to you and the others for fear that
> what I say might be uneducated or boring.
The difference between you and the thorns in the side is that you engage
in the discourse while the latter preach from a soapbox of ignorance.
Every new moon some poster, armed with a (mis)understanding of
surrealism trickled down through popular sources, appears and berates
the group for this and that. The most recent was Johamar, who complained
that the discussions here were by turns too intellectual and too silly.
It sounded suspiciously like the Three Bears story, and we all know how
that ends. Goldilocks gets torn to pieces by the languorous beasts and
strewn across a lonely clearing. Then the picnic begins in earnest.
> I've enjoyed many of the posts here, including yours. I have read things
> that
> you and the others have created and loved them.
>
> For interests sake, I have a question, and please believe me it is sincere.
> Do
> you (and anyone else here that cares to answer) feel that someone who knows
> absolutely nothing of surrealism, never heard a peep about it, could produce
> a
> surrealist work, think like a surrealist, or carry out some type of
> surrealist action?
Yes. I don’t see that it could be any other way, as surrealist thought
is founded on the natural capacities of imagination, desire and
rebellion. So, for example, there are still naive artists who produce
raw surrealism while being unaware of organized surrealism.
> Anyway, I realize all of this is futile because it's all about Nik,
Nope.
> and we
> all know
> that he is the longest running topic in here. If that topic were to die,
> there would
> be no alt.surrealism.
Don’t believe that for a second.
-- Parry
> I just felt your comment brought up some important thoughts.
>
> Laura
-----= 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! =-----
Laura
> [ the "personalists" insist that "surrealism" is _whatever_ they decide it
> is and that it's 80 year history and the perspectives of actual
surrealists
> meeting regularly in many cities around the globe are irrelevant. the
> "personalists" assert that they alone define "surrealism" at any given
> moment as anything they want it to be at that specific moment. ]
Can you define personalist for me? What makes a person a personalist?
How does personalism differ from surrealism? Is personalism a widely
known movement or is it a term used just on this newsgroup for certain
things/people?
Pardon my ignorance. ;)
> none. one just needs to be interested in exploring the subject openly and
> able to learn from those explorations.
Wouldn't exploration be personal and different from one individual to
another, hence removing any fence that might exist around what is, or is
not,
surrealism?
> nearly everyone comes to their first discussions or readings about
> "surrealism" with misconceptions that have formed over many years of
> exposure to the abuse that word suffers daily. its a consequence of the
> "Dali-as-gateway" syndrome that Dale talks about.
yes... I would agree.
> the most significant difference between the "personalists" and others, who
> may actually turn out to be surrealists, is that the "personalists"
> arrogantly cling to their ignorance when challenged.
So "personalist" is a negative term?
> "surrealist" isn't an attribute to be found in the "work" or "action", it
is
> a descriptive term _applied to a human process_ -- the creative
exploration
> of a liberated imagination. it is this exploration and the perspectives
> brought to it and formed from it that determines the suitability of that
> label.
Yes.. I knew I would get tripped up here. I have a lot of trouble when it
comes to describing surrealism itself.
Laura
Laura
> Yes. Surrealism without books is like a model airplane without glue or
> the MIR Station without space. That is, when it's not like sniffing
> model airplane glue in the MIR Space Station.
heehee.
> Cythera's comment could apply to several posters, most of whom stop by
> just long enough to complain about everything.
I just wasn't certain if it was a general statement, or if it was aimed in
one
direction specifically.
> The difference between you and the thorns in the side is that you engage
> in the discourse while the latter preach from a soapbox of ignorance.
> Every new moon some poster, armed with a (mis)understanding of
> surrealism trickled down through popular sources, appears and berates
> the group for this and that. The most recent was Johamar, who complained
> that the discussions here were by turns too intellectual and too silly.
> It sounded suspiciously like the Three Bears story, and we all know how
> that ends. Goldilocks gets torn to pieces by the languorous beasts and
> strewn across a lonely clearing. Then the picnic begins in earnest.
Too intellectual and too silly? That't too bad.
> > For interests sake, I have a question, and please believe me it is
sincere.
> > Do
> > you (and anyone else here that cares to answer) feel that someone who
knows
> > absolutely nothing of surrealism, never heard a peep about it, could
produce
> > a
> > surrealist work, think like a surrealist, or carry out some type of
> > surrealist action?
>
> Yes. I don't see that it could be any other way, as surrealist thought
> is founded on the natural capacities of imagination, desire and
> rebellion. So, for example, there are still naive artists who produce
> raw surrealism while being unaware of organized surrealism.
Yes! (sorry, I'm sick and lack the brain power to say anything more
elaborate)
> > Anyway, I realize all of this is futile because it's all about Nik,
>
> Nope.
I'm glad to hear it.
>
> > and we
> > all know
> > that he is the longest running topic in here. If that topic were to
die,
> > there would
> > be no alt.surrealism.
>
> Don't believe that for a second.
Thanks for the post Parry. I liked it and it's nice to get answers from
many
different people here. :)
! =-----
Dale Houstman
> all know
> that he is the longest running topic in here. If that topic were to die,
> there would
> be no alt.surrealism.
>
question) is simply not true. In fact, for a time (until he was called back
to the fold by his UberMom), he was quite gone, and conversations and shared
projects went on quite as well (and I think a little better) than they did
while his pathetic presence was felt.
But he is a self-admitted troll: i.e. one who confuses attention with
importance. For the most part I no longer respond to him, and Brandon just
insults him casually (it's like cursing at a bothersome dog shitting in your
roses). There are times however, when the substance of what he says, and the
person to whom he is addressing it calls out for a little more involvement,
if only because there are several people here to whom surrealism means
something of some importance, and they hate to see it misrepresented by this
toad.
Yes, surrealist work can be produced by even those who are uneducated in the
intellectual ways of the movement, mainly because surrealism is not an art
movement, and so its aesthetics are not bound up in stylistic fetishes.
But I don't see why it would hurt to know something about the subject in the
group title, a "rule" that is no more onerous than an engineering group
expecting new participants to have at least a cursory understanding of the
subject under investigation. Of course, the forum is free and all are
welcome, but it may be difficult to gather much from this arena, partly
because you seem resistant to the simplest investigations of a phenomenon,
and partly because there are elements in the mix dedicated to misconstruing
statements and to a rather shallow evocation of nonsense.
dmh
Sven
> In article <B5DED9A3.12089%svenh.this...@blueyonder.co.uk>,
> Sven <svenh.this...@blueyonder.co.uk> wrote:
>> cythera wrote:
>>
>>> In article <B5DDF1A8.11E66%svenh.this...@blueyonder.co.uk>,
>>> Sven <svenh.this...@blueyonder.co.uk> wrote:
>>>> cythera wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> In article <8p8u04$7o5$1...@freenet9.carleton.ca>,
>>>>> ac...@FreeNet.Carleton.CA (Nikolaus Maack) wrote:
>>>
>>>> It's now my birthday.
>>>
>>> Happy birthday.
>>
>> Thank you. I'm 27. (Although a lady is allowed to lie about her
>> age.)
>
>>>> To celebrate, I'd like everyone to join me in a big bath.
>
>>>> http://www.jerichocosmetics.co.il/bathsalts.htm
>
>>>> Yup, that's right. All of us, together. We can sort out all our
>>>> little difficulties.
>
>>> For that to happen, some people need to study surrealism. Then
>>> possibly the group can sustain interesting conversations.
>
>> No; I don't think so. For that to happen, people need to be
>> tolerant, and not to take themselves too seriously.
>
> So if I subscribe to a newsgroup full of chemists and post at length
> about my astounding formulas (despite the fact that I know next to
> nothing about chemistry), the people on that newsgroup should "be
> tolerant, and not to take themselves too seriously"?
Go to any one of the physics newsgroups. No, you don't have to, but I have.
There are all sorts of lunatics there, and I mean lunatics. These people
post continuously with EXACTLY the same crackpot theories. Over and over
again. They attack the real scientists, rubbishing their claims.
Sometimes, these attacks are points of misunderstanding. Sometimes they're
just blind inability to respond to rational argument (which isn't too good
if you're a scientist :) ).
There are a few who are evidently on different planets; these are simply
killfiled. Every so often, someone might post something that says, "xyz's
theories are not science", just so high school students etc. who might come
on aren't fooled. The ones whose arguments sound even vaguely convincing
(but are false) are refuted by regular posters patiently and without spite,
and with evidence of their error.
I'm not saying that people here don't do that (they do). On the whole,
there is a lot of tolerance in these newsgroups. And that tolerance is for
*real* crackpots. Nik isn't a crackpot. I'm not a crackpot. (Prawn is,
but that's another matter.)
Of course, it's well within your right to refute him in any way you see fit.
And he can be offensive, so you can be too. And you frequently are. But to
say that everything will be solved if everyone "studied surrealism" is just
not true. It's a clash of attitudes. That's why I find this group so
interesting; it's got an interesting personality mix. Things tend to be a
bit spiky, but at least the place is alive.
> I'm not sure what you mean by your phrase, incidentally, but you could
> hardly be advocating they forget what they know and humor me out of
> politeness?
Not humour; refute civilly or ignore.
> And I think it's surrealism that we "take seriously", for the simple
> reason that we love it. Though I would say that perhaps you and I
> have different ideas of what taking it seriously entails.
I didn't say "take surrealism seriously". I said, "take themselves
seriously". The phrase "don't take something too seriously" means exactly
what it says. This group has a polarity. I'm proudly somewhere in the
middle, as (I think) is Laura. Nik is towards one extreme. Nik doesn't
take himself seriously at all. He is very self depreciating, often
self-insulting. He fools around and plays. I think he is serious, though,
about what he believes. It's just that he doesn't have a taste for long
arguments, arguments in which (everyone should admit) there is never going
to be a resolution as two parties are speaking from fundamentally differing
assumptions. So, the entire group is at fault here; you and Nik and me and
everyone else.
On the other hand, there is a group who take themselves entirely seriously,
or appear to. They very seldom are self-depreciating, they don't seem to be
able to take a joke (that comment about the bath was, believe it or not, a
joke) and in general they will take an argument to its conclusion without
even pausing to think that the argument itself might be pointless.
Two groups meet...bamph.
>> I think Laura said a lot that I agree with in another response to
>> this post.
>
> I encourage each of you to read about surrealism and go look at
> surrealist art wherever you can find it.
Yes.
>>> ---
>>> I'm curious about you and some of the other people who write here:
>>> are there any books you've loved that are by, or about, actual
>>> surrealists?
>
>> I don't think so. I've certainly never read anything that was by a
>> surrealist knowing that that person was so.
>
>>> What have you read so far?
>
>> You mean by surrealists, or just in general?
>
> I mean what books have you and others read so far that are by or about
> actual surrealists.
> Now that you have the names of some of them, if you all begin reading,
> we might find that we have some interesting avenues to explore
> together.
I think we have been exploring interesting avenues (otherwise I'd have got
bored and left long ago :) ). If I see a surrealist book that I like the
look of, I will probably buy it and read it and it's possible that I might
love it.
> I myself as of last night have finally gotten my hands on a copy
> of _Les Chants de Maldoror_, translated by Alexis Lykiard.
> Believe me, this wasn't easy to find in my area, and I've never even
> read _Maldoror_, so am really kind of excited.
Let me know if it's a good read.
Sven
> But I don't see why it would hurt to know something about the subject in the
> group title, a "rule" that is no more onerous than an engineering group
> expecting new participants to have at least a cursory understanding of the
> subject under investigation. Of course, the forum is free and all are
> welcome, but it may be difficult to gather much from this arena, partly
> because you seem resistant to the simplest investigations of a phenomenon,
> and partly because there are elements in the mix dedicated to misconstruing
> statements and to a rather shallow evocation of nonsense.
It certainly wouldn't hurt to investigate more deeply into the subject.
Learning is very seldom a futile exercise. However, there are some of us
who have less inclination to actively follow up something they do for fun
(or I do, anyway).
A newsgroup is as valid a place as any to (putting it crudely) find out
about things. I don't personally believe it should be a criterion that a
person be serious about a subject before they dip their toe in. Claiming
five minutes after you arrive that everyone is wrong and yours is the one
true surrealism is one thing; tentatively saying that being learned on a
subject is not necessary to gleaning something from the newsgroup or
participating (at one level or another) in the discussions is another.
As for the "shallow evocation of nonsense": ah, harsh words. I enjoy
playing with language; I enjoy scribbling down the first thing that comes
into my head, no matter how bizarre it is; I enjoy juxtaposing jarring or
condradictory ideas. I take joy in it. If it doesn't even make you smile,
once in a while, then that's a shame. Nonsense is something I've always
loved; I think I was exposed to Lear at too early an age. It's an art in
itself; and there is some pride in being a Fool.
Fascinan
Fascinan
john adams
Sven wrote in message ...
>
>On the other hand, there is a group who take themselves entirely seriously,
>or appear to. They very seldom are self-depreciating, they don't seem to
be
>able to take a joke (that comment about the bath was, believe it or not, a
>joke)
I thought you were serious - i ordered my jericho bath salts and no one even
showed up!
john
Sven
We hadn't agreed a venue. Your place then? All in favour post "aye!"
barrett john erickson
> barrett john said:
>
> > [ the "personalists" insist that "surrealism" is _whatever_ they decide
it
> > is and that it's 80 year history and the perspectives of actual
> surrealists
> > meeting regularly in many cities around the globe are irrelevant. the
> > "personalists" assert that they alone define "surrealism" at any given
> > moment as anything they want it to be at that specific moment. ]
>
> Can you define personalist for me? What makes a person a personalist?
> How does personalism differ from surrealism? Is personalism a widely
> known movement or is it a term used just on this newsgroup for certain
> things/people?
a term i coined to refer to those who were clinging to their ignorance
during
discussions about "surrealism" in late '98. i posted this definition at the
time
(along with several others) for a bit of fun and to clarify my usage of
several terms in that discussion:
personalist (n.)
one who proclaims that he/she is entitled to ignore shared reality and
existing context (historical and current) especially when discussing matters
of theory -- particularly surrealist theory. The personalist believes, for
example, that it is sufficient for him/her to declare some belief or
position compatible with "surrealism" for it to be so (e.g. religion) and
that the disagreement (even universal disagreement) of surrealists past and
present is irrelevant. Consequently, the personalist is often found in a
defensive posture, hopelessly outnumbered by those he/she claims are trying
to enforce some orthodoxy, but who are in reality only insisting that they
have no obligation to accept the personalist's unilateral redefinitions, and
will continue to challenge them as incompatible with that theory as it
already exists.
> Pardon my ignorance. ;)
>
> > none. one just needs to be interested in exploring the subject openly
and
> > able to learn from those explorations.
>
> Wouldn't exploration be personal and different from one individual to
> another, hence removing any fence that might exist around what is, or is
> not,
> surrealism?
certainly each individual surrealist embodies the movement differently, but
"surrealism" (as a collective process -- the aggregate activity of all
surrealists) has an "attractor" at its core that allows it to be identified
as
"surrealism".
that we can discuss what is or is not "surrealism" is proof enough of this
simple reality.
the "personalist" denies even this.
>
> > nearly everyone comes to their first discussions or readings about
> > "surrealism" with misconceptions that have formed over many years of
> > exposure to the abuse that word suffers daily. its a consequence of the
> > "Dali-as-gateway" syndrome that Dale talks about.
>
> yes... I would agree.
>
> > the most significant difference between the "personalists" and others,
who
> > may actually turn out to be surrealists, is that the "personalists"
> > arrogantly cling to their ignorance when challenged.
>
> So "personalist" is a negative term?
as demeaning an insult as i'm likely to make outside of the occasional (and
always invigorating) border skirmish provoked by the assault of the four
watt bulbs from alt.slack, or alt.pouting.sandwich, or alt.syntax.tactical,
or alt.religion.kibology, or...
where was "iv" from?
>
> > "surrealist" isn't an attribute to be found in the "work" or "action",
it
> is
> > a descriptive term _applied to a human process_ -- the creative
> exploration
> > of a liberated imagination. it is this exploration and the perspectives
> > brought to it and formed from it that determines the suitability of that
> > label.
>
> Yes.. I knew I would get tripped up here. I have a lot of trouble when it
> comes to describing surrealism itself.
largely a trap laid by the language. not easy to avoid in most
circumstances, but one to be constantly aware of so it can be
countered when necessary to a specific discussion.
barrett john erickson
"Nikolaus Maack" <ac...@FreeNet.Carleton.CA> wrote in message
news:8pb5cg$i9g$1...@freenet9.carleton.ca...
> "barrett john erickson" (bar...@magneticfields.org) writes:
> > "some people have to learn to acknowledge their ignorance on the subject
of
> > 'surrealism' and stop insisting that ignorance is just an alternative
form
> > of knowledge."
>
> I think some people (ie. you) have to recognize that their definition of
> surrealism is but one of many approaches. If surrealism is about letting
> go of conscious impulses and chasing the dream which is more real than the
> waking world, clearly not everyone is going to come back with the same
> dream. If they all did, I'd be very suspicious.
as usual you begin with a misrepresentation of "surrealism".
>
> You seem to regularly complain that people aren't following your specific
> plan on how they should behave without societal constraint. See any irony
> in that?
>
> "Be free like me! Here are the rules! Follow them and be free!"
>
> > the most significant difference between the "personalists" and others,
who
> > may actually turn out to be surrealists, is that the "personalists"
> > arrogantly cling to their ignorance when challenged.
>
> While the so called real surrealists cling to their "tradition" that is
> supposedly 80 years strong, and thus fail to explore because they're
> following those that came before them, instead of recognizing that each
> age is a new one, each individual is a new person. You can't read every
> word Andre Breton wrote and become him and then progress to something
> beyond him. Your brain does not work that way.
>
> If you're going to be Free, you can't be a free extension of Andre Breton
> and all the other surrealists. You have to be a free Barrett, a free
> Cythera, a free Nik.
your "bit depth" is woefully inadequate.
i suggest you delay your "simplification and paraphrase" conversion until a
bit later in your cognitive process, and try to understand what has actually
been said first. this may reduce the disturbingly large number of
interpretational errors you are experiencing and reduce the frequency with
which you need to be corrected on such blatant misrepresentations of someone
else's comments.
>
> > "surrealist" isn't an attribute to be found in the "work" or "action",
it is
> > a descriptive term _applied to a human process_ -- the creative
exploration
> > of a liberated imagination.
>
> What do you make of Sven's comment then, about surrealist processes? If I
> sit down and let loose my subconscious and come up with the image of a man
> sitting in a chair, was that a surrealist process? If I draw
> automatically, with a "liberated imagination" and what I end up with is a
> man sitting in a chair, did I just engage in "surrealist" behavior?
"surrealist" is a descriptive term applied to a human process.
i also offered a definition of a "surrealist" in 12/98:
surrealist (n.)
a person who has understood and committed him/herself to the surrealist
project as it has been theoretically explored, witnessed and collectively
practiced -- not as a "school" or a "style" or a "club" or a "set of rules"
but as the intuitive recognition of a fundamental life imperative. A
surrealist is one who has internalized and _extended_ (not contradicted and
reversed) this project in freshly discovered fields of investigation as well
as along existing trajectories toward the marvelous begun by fallen
colleagues.
so the answer to your question is no, if _you_ sit down to draw today, it is
not a surrealist process.
>
> Don't you find it odd that a lot of "automatic" texts all have the same
> look, feel, flavour? It's almost like everyone knows what a "real"
> automatic text looks like, and subconsciously AIMS for it.
the text is just an artefact of the experiment, not its subject.
> > in fact, taking this another step, those who proclaim "i am not a
> > surrealist" are far more likely to be defendable as "qualifying" for the
> > label "surrealist" than those who adopt the label but deny its meaning.
>
> Funny, some Buddhists say the same thing. If you meet someone on the
> street and he says, "I am the buddha," then you know he is not the real
> buddha. To quote Monty Python -- please forgive me -- "Only the real
> messiah would say he's not the messiah!"
>
> All of that strikes me as a pretentious load of flaming dogshit -- which I
> suspect is why Monty Python was making fun of the attitude in the first
> place.
and as usual, you miss my point entirely.
i did not say that claiming _not_ to be a surrealist was an indicator that
one _was_. nor did i say that saying that one _is_ a surrealist is an
indicator that he/she _is not_.
that is precisely the kind of "flaming dogshit" i have argued against
repeatedly in this space.
i said that, if presented with two groups of people, a surrealist is more
likely to find "fellow travelers" among those saying "i am _not_ a
surrealist" than he/she is among those who claim "i _am_ a surrealist" while
simultaneously arguing that the term "surrealist" has no meaning that they
need to acknowledge.
Nikolaus Maack
> as usual you begin with a misrepresentation of "surrealism".
No. As usual I begin with my interpretation of surrealism, just as how
you began with your particular interpretation. Only it seems that you're
absolutely convinced that your interpretation happens to be THE
interpreation. Which is pretty funny, given that what you believe bears
little or no resemblence to the original surrealism.
Examples: You say there is no longer a need to explore areas of
mysticism. It's a dead end. You have discarded the conscious/unconscious
model. Freud is a dead end.
These two things alone indicate that what you are putting forward is not
the surrealism of so long ago, but a variant. An interpretation of the
original. After all, the original was almost entirely based on Freud and
the unconscious.
To suggest that your particular variant of the original form is the one
true variant is ridiculous. It's hubris and it's bullshit. Yours is but
one stance of many. Surrealism has travelled in many different directions
since the good old days. Calling your way "THE WAY" is nonsense.
I allow you your way. You do not allow me mine, insisting that
Barrett knows best. I think Barrett is a little too big for his britches,
and is busy coating himself in all the trappings of an authority figure.
This has been my main argument with you for a long, long time. It seems
to be a point you are unwilling to address.
> surrealist (n.)
> a person who has understood and committed him/herself to the surrealist
> project as it has been theoretically explored, witnessed and collectively
> practiced -- not as a "school" or a "style" or a "club" or a "set of rules"
> but as the intuitive recognition of a fundamental life imperative. A
> surrealist is one who has internalized and _extended_ (not contradicted and
> reversed) this project in freshly discovered fields of investigation as well
> as along existing trajectories toward the marvelous begun by fallen
> colleagues.
Your definition is stupid. When the veriage is cast off, it says:
"A surrealist is someone who believes in surrealism and is a member of the
surrealist group."
This definition is of little or no practical use to anyone but you.
Define your "surrealist project" please.
> so the answer to your question is no, if _you_ sit down to draw today, it is
> not a surrealist process.
First you have to be a card carrying member of the collective?
> i said that, if presented with two groups of people, a surrealist is more
> likely to find "fellow travelers" among those saying "i am _not_ a
> surrealist" than he/she is among those who claim "i _am_ a surrealist" while
> simultaneously arguing that the term "surrealist" has no meaning that they
> need to acknowledge.
I defined surrealism from my perspective and posted it quite recently. It
can be found here:
Defining Surrealism
http://www.themestream.com/gspd_browse/browse/view_article.gsp?c_id=157133
It is far more coherent than any definition you have cared to provide us
with. Feel free to quote from it. I'd very much like to hear your
rebuttal.
john adams
Yes - come on over - i have the acid bath and chains prepared too, my good
friends (Ah-ah-ah).
john
Parry
>
> In article <39B91E...@zxOMITmail.com>,
> pa...@zxOMITmail.com wrote:
> > Laura wrote:
>
> > > cythera said:
>
> > Every new moon some poster, armed with a (mis)understanding of
> > surrealism trickled down through popular sources, appears and
> > berates the group for this and that.
>
> same _irreconcilable_ differences about what is and what is not
> surrealism hashed out repeatedly: most of these same new posters
> mistakenly view such disagreements as being of an entirely personal
> nature.
>
> > The most recent was Johamar, who complained that the discussions
> > here were by turns too intellectual and too silly.
>
> frustration with this newsgroup. I love his question: "Where are the
> poets?"
I seem to have misjudged Johamar, probably because I never saw any
follow-up post to the questions you posed; but that may have been a
function of my news server problems. So the most recent drive-by poster
was Cyclatron, not counting Laura’s sniper?
> Part of the answer to that of course lies in surrealism's
> collaborative nature. And to whatever extent alt.surrealism is a
> surrealist group, it has not, in my time here, been a particularly
> fertile breeding ground for the revolutionary and the revolutionary
> idea.
> I could point fingers at all the people who won't challenge themselves
> (and by this I mean all those who aren't open to turning their
> belief systems upside-down and inside-out), but they are the norm,
> aren't they.
I wouldn’t point a finger as I have no expectations of newsgroup users
for them to fail to meet. If things never coalesce into a project larger
than casual discussions, this may be a flaw of the usenet medium, or a
deficit of vision that is the fault of no one in particular. But things
change.
> For myself I find I get _way_ too distracted by them and their
> "vin ordinaire", when they're possibly just mouthing what they've
> been told for years; what I'm really rejecting is the power system
> that programmed all this rubbish into us from day 1.
>
> I took johamar to be saying he didn't feel modern surrealists -- and
> this newsgroup in particular -- are radical enough.
>
> Revolutions are impolite.
I doubt there’s any dearth of radicalism among the group’s users, but
wonder just what form it can take here.
> Unfortunately johamar's post about Artaud showed up as HTML
> gobbledygook. It included a gif, which, as we've all found out, we
> can no longer get. I appreciate his posting it nonetheless, and hope
> he'll give it another go.
Missed that post, too.
-- Parry
brandon...@my-deja.com
> As usual I begin with my interpretation of surrealism ...
I think it's pretty interesting that those who have ACTUALLY READ a
good number of books by and about Surrealist and Surrealism seem to
agree with WHAT IT IS, but those others who lack this serious inquiry
and who have admitted in the past to finding Breton's Mad Love to
be "boring" and left it unfinished, have a completely different (what
we might call a "retarded" or maybe even "premature") view of what
Surrealism is.
> I think Barrett is a little too big for his britches, and is busy
> coating himself in all the trappings of an authority figure. This has
> been my main argument with you for a long, long time. It seems
> to be a point you are unwilling to address.
I think you have a complex. What gave you this "fatherly" view of
Barrett? You're relationship with your invisible friend? Maybe it came
to you in a dream while talking to an onion? Or maybe one night, just
after you gave Machelle a nice beating, God came down from the heaven's
and slappeth upon you the wretched truth about Barrett and his gang of
devil worshipping Surrealist? I say fuck your answer. The newsgroup
should put it up to a vote.
OKAY FOLKS!!! HERE IT IS!!! PLACE YOUR VOTES!!! Does Nik's complex
about Barrett come from:
A) his invisible friend
B) the prophetic voice of a talking onion (in a dream)
C) a mystical experience he had after beating his girlfriend
(write in answers are accepted)
> Defining Surrealism http://www ....
Post it here. I ain't giving ya no nickel of mine, boy!!
Sent via Deja.com http://www.deja.com/
Before you buy.
brandon...@my-deja.com
> I wouldn't look at Themestream if Louis Aragon came back from the
> dead and posted there. Something about it feels elitist to me.
Or just perfectly stupid.
> Thought I'd thank you here for the quotes awhile back, and especially
> the lead re detournement. I haven't commented before because I
> haven't studied up on it yet. (I am really only beginning my serious
> study now).
I've been trying to figure out Situationism for awhile, Barrett gave me
some good links like a year ago, and while everyone tells me I
understand what it is I don't feel so confident. Recently I read a
Situationist critique of Surrealism (Vaneigem's A Cavalier History of
Surrealism) and I think that helped me understand the Situationist
better (can't explain how tho). They also seem to have a good
undertanding of what Surrealism is. I'm going to have to re-read
Debord's Society of the Spectacle and Vaneigem's The Revolution of
Everyday Life. Maybe then I'll have more confidence with this topic.
> _Les Chants de Maldoror_ is a marvel.
Its amazing how many people know about this book. I recently re-read it
and actually had several people make comments to me on my lunch break
about the book. One Zen Buddhist Yoga guy jokingly told me that it was
going to warp my mind. Another, boss #2, had actually read it and we
talked about the Maldoror/Shark love affair. For some reason I see its
popularity as odd, but refreshing.
> Lautreamont reminds me A LOT of Poe. Do you, or anyone, know if they
> read each other's work? If I recall correctly, Poe was much admired
> by the French during his lifetime.
Its possible. When did Baudelaire first translate Poe into French? I
can't imagine Lautreamont not reading Poe. From the brief info on
Lautreamont that I have he seemed to be pretty well accepted by the
writers of his time (he was included in Remy de Gourmont's Book of
Masks), and I would assume that all those Symbolists and decadent
writers had read Poe, so I would assume he had also.
brandon...@my-deja.com
> personalist (n.)
> one who proclaims that he/she is entitled to ignore shared reality and
> existing context (historical and current) especially when discussing
Not to confuse Laura we should also add a short summery of Nik's 2nd
Manifesto of Personalism, that clearly states that a Personalist should
also share mundane experiences of life, such as tying your shoe, eating
a hamburger, clipping your toenails, with the individuals who view and
post at alt.surrealism. Nik calls these documentations of the nul
moments of life "confessions." He claims that if you confess your
mundane experience to him he will, in return, confess his mundane
experiences to you. Of course this rarely happens, because when people
do "confess" he tells them that what they shared was not a "confession."
Recently I argued, and got no response, that Nik himself is the reason
why this area of Personalism is a complete failure. Why? Simply because
he treats the confession as a commodity. I tried to explain to him that
the confession is not something that can be baught, sold, or traded. It
is something PERSONAL and PRICELESS. What Nik fails to realize is that
the confessionalist should release him/herself from the chains of
bullshit, and head face first, straight forward into reality like a
kamikaze pilot, or like Breton living in a glass house. This type of
confession, which I am now calling "Kamikaze Confessionalism"
disregards whatever pros or cons come from facing reality. This type of
confessionalist would DIE for reality. Unfortunately Nik sees reality
as something to run from, and not something to die for. And what I mean
by this is that he only values the subjective side of reality, and
ignores the objective.
[In another of his Personalist *additions* he also claims that a
Personalist sees that everything is true and everything is false. But
this bullshit hippy trash is to silly to even summerize any more than I
already have. ]
Dale Houstman
"cythera" <cyt...@my-deja.com> wrote in message
news:8pfbda$koo$1...@nnrp1.deja.com...
> In article <8pf9im$j0c$1...@nnrp1.deja.com>,
> brandon...@my-deja.com wrote:
> > Nikolaus Maack wrote:
> > > As usual I begin with my interpretation of surrealism ...
>
> > > Defining Surrealism http://www ....
>
> > Post it here. I ain't giving ya no nickel of mine, boy!!
>
> dead and posted there. Something about it feels elitist to me.
> Thought I'd thank you here for the quotes awhile back, and especially
> the lead re detournement. I haven't commented before because I
> haven't studied up on it yet. (I am really only beginning my serious
> study now).
>
> Do you, or anyone, know if they read each other's work? If I recall
> correctly, Poe was much admired by the French during his lifetime.
>
From the gothic and stylistic viewpoint, I would venture he had read Poe
(since almost every literate Frenchman of the time got around to him). Poe's
European influence is beyond measure, having rippled into French novels
(Mirabeau, the French detective novels, etc.), and poetry (especially
Baudelaire, who was basically ravished by Edgar on a cold marble slab).
dmh
scot...@earthlink.net
wrote:
...
Nik,
Barrett's definition contained a phrase: "the intuitive recognition
of a fundamental life imperative".
Did you consider that might be the central issue of the definition?
barrett john erickson
<brandon...@my-deja.com> wrote in message
news:8pfh4g$r8q$1...@nnrp1.deja.com...
> barrett wrote:
> > personalist (n.)
> > one who proclaims that he/she is entitled to ignore shared reality and
> > existing context (historical and current) especially when discussing
> > matters of theory -- particularly surrealist theory ...
>
> Not to confuse Laura we should also add a short summery of Nik's 2nd
> Manifesto of Personalism,
ah, yes, i'd forgotten this little nugget entirely.
> [...]
> Recently I argued, and got no response, that Nik himself is the reason
> why this area of Personalism is a complete failure. Why? Simply because
> he treats the confession as a commodity.
an excellent point.
barrett john erickson
> [...]
> Examples: You say there is no longer a need to explore areas of
> mysticism. It's a dead end. You have discarded the conscious/unconscious
> model. Freud is a dead end.
>
> These two things alone indicate that what you are putting forward is not
> the surrealism of so long ago, but a variant. An interpretation of the
> original. After all, the original was almost entirely based on Freud and
> the unconscious.
your perspective is limited by your failure to understand the more
fundamental project -- the base from which the interest in Freud or the
sub/unconscious or mysticism grew and the same base from which i now reject
them, having recognized them as dead ends relative to that fundamental
project.
>
> To suggest that your particular variant of the original form is the one
> true variant is ridiculous. It's hubris and it's bullshit. Yours is but
> one stance of many. Surrealism has travelled in many different directions
> since the good old days. Calling your way "THE WAY" is nonsense.
but it is you, nik, who is suggesting such bullshit by claiming you can
unilaterally decide what is or is not compatible with "surrealism".
as i've explained before, my perspectives on this subject and my
"definitions" are _descriptive_, not _proscriptive_. they've evolved from
considerable theoretical exploration, meditation on readings, and more
importantly, interactions with living surrealists around the world.
there is a great variety of pursuits among surrealists, and i certainly have
no problem with this. the "book of definitions" i posted in 12/98 is the
result of my efforts to understand both the scope of that diversity and the
common base from which it rises.
like a tree, surrealist exploration has branched in many directions, but not
all of these branches are still "risers" after 80 years.
but the most relevant point is: when i encounter a surrealist who still
thinks Frued is worth pursuing, i can challenge that and we engage in a
discussion that is rooted in surrealist perspective and theory. and we will
both gain from such an exchange.
you reject the relevance of that perspective and theory, so there is no
basis for such discussion with you.
>
> I allow you your way. You do not allow me mine, insisting that
> Barrett knows best. I think Barrett is a little too big for his britches,
> and is busy coating himself in all the trappings of an authority figure.
i'm simply not allowing you to re-define "surrealism" in your own image _in
a public forum_.
it is the fact that we have no basis for discussion that limits my responses
to direct challenges.
you don't have to adopt my position. all you have to do is stop asserting
that "surrealism" is something that it demonstrably isn't while refusing to
acknowledge the volumes of surrealist theory and actual living surrealists
as the one legitimate "source material" for resolving the inevitible
challenge.
in other words: defend your crippled assertions with something beyond
"because i said so" or "because that's the way others who know as little as
i do say it is".
>
> This has been my main argument with you for a long, long time. It seems
> to be a point you are unwilling to address.
>
> > surrealist (n.)
> > a person who has understood and committed him/herself to the surrealist
> > project as it has been theoretically explored, witnessed and
collectively
> > practiced -- not as a "school" or a "style" or a "club" or a "set of
rules"
> > but as the intuitive recognition of a fundamental life imperative. A
> > surrealist is one who has internalized and _extended_ (not contradicted
and
> > reversed) this project in freshly discovered fields of investigation as
well
> > as along existing trajectories toward the marvelous begun by fallen
> > colleagues.
>
> Your definition is stupid. When the veriage is cast off, it says:
>
> "A surrealist is someone who believes in surrealism and is a member of the
> surrealist group."
again, your "bit depth" is inadequate.
>
> This definition is of little or no practical use to anyone but you.
>
> Define your "surrealist project" please.
i did so in the same 12/98 post and have repeatedly before and since, but
i'll offer it again:
surrealist project (n., process)
the fundamental life imperative among surrealists, revolutionary in scope
and intent. The surrealist project is a continuous process directed toward
achieving an enhanced reality -- a (sur)reality -- in which the liberated
imagination is fully integrated into daily living. Surrealists recognize
this as a collective and collaborative process requiring a social
transformation as well as a personal one.
[ i should note for those not around at the time that these definitional
posts were a bit of serious fun in response to and within the context of an
on-going encounter with several particularly dense posters who were buzzing
around one of "andrea chen's" periodic appearances. they were not in the
spirit of pronouncements. and now that i've mentioned "her" name, i suppose
"andrea" will show up as i expect "she" runs daily vanity searches. ]
>
> > so the answer to your question is no, if _you_ sit down to draw today,
it is
> > not a surrealist process.
>
> First you have to be a card carrying member of the collective?
>
> > i said that, if presented with two groups of people, a surrealist is
more
> > likely to find "fellow travelers" among those saying "i am _not_ a
> > surrealist" than he/she is among those who claim "i _am_ a surrealist"
while
> > simultaneously arguing that the term "surrealist" has no meaning that
they
> > need to acknowledge.
>
> I defined surrealism from my perspective and posted it quite recently. It
> can be found here:
>
> Defining Surrealism
> http://www.themestream.com/gspd_browse/browse/view_article.gsp?c_id=157133
>
> It is far more coherent than any definition you have cared to provide us
> with. Feel free to quote from it. I'd very much like to hear your
> rebuttal.
repost it if you want comments. but if i didn't bother to offer any before,
i can't say i'll do so now.
Nikolaus Maack
> Because he's already explored it, as have I and others, and found it
> to be lacking.
> So why does it need to be re-explored?
If I find that yams are no longer an interesting food, because I have
explored yams in their entirety and find yams lacking, is it reasonable
for me to suggest that all surrealists everywhere must give up on yams?
Yams are a dead end, Cythera. Give up on yams. All the cool surrealists
eat potatoes. Not yams.
> You seem to believe in the existence of a "higher power". Okay.
> Please explain how this belief accords with "the original surrealism".
I don't believe in the existence of a higher power. I believe in
spirituality and mysticism on a personal level. If there is a higher
power, it is a chaotic pattern that makes sense. There is a higher power
in the sense that I am a grain of sand that lives on a beach. All the
other grains of sand, and the sea air, and the waves, and the seagulls,
and fat German families coated in coconut scented oil -- they all add up
to a "higher power".
> This is unfair of you, Nik. He has defined it many times, as you
> know.
Hardly unfair. Barrett seems to have all his definitions filed away,
ready to be pulled out at a moment's notice. I'm sure it won't hurt him
to post hi opinion once more.
> Why ask anyone, anywhere, to give you what you can so easily get
> yourself.
Perhaps he's changed his definition. Ha ha, no really, I mean it.
Snicker.
> If you want barrett, or anyone, to read your article on surrealism's
> definition, why not simply post it here for everybody to love, hate or
> be indifferent to, just as the "original surrealists" would have done.
I posted it once, then I threw it on to themestream, where I keep all my
stuff. Hey, if Barrett wants to read my definition, he can just do a Deja
search on my name, etc. Why should I make it easier for him?
Snicker giggle guffaw.
Nikolaus Maack
thinking out loud.]
"barrett john erickson" (bar...@magneticfields.org) writes:
> your perspective is limited by your failure to understand the more
> fundamental project -- the base from which the interest in Freud or the
> sub/unconscious or mysticism grew and the same base from which i now reject
> them, having recognized them as dead ends relative to that fundamental
> project.
I recognize them not to be dead ends. I've done more reading than you, I
suspect, in the area of therapy and psychoanalysis. Given that you have
rejected that area of exploration, I think that's a safe bet.
From what I have read, and from the people that I see, the
unconscious/conscious model still has a lot to offer. Psychoanalytic
theory still has a lot to offer. It is still alive. We disagree on this
-- which is fine -- but you insist that a "clinging" to this "outdated
model" means that I cannot possibly be a real surrealist. Which is
bullshit.
As always, your bias isn't a bias to you -- it's "the truth". Such a
stance infuriates me, because it is so very primitive and childish, and
yet pretends to be so informed. It's a classic defense mechanism.
"My opinion is the truth, and your opinion is just an opinion."
How many times have I seen this, over and over again? Little boys and
girls pretending that THEY KNOW, when there is no such thing as KNOWING.
Everything changes constantly -- especially in the world of art and
philosophy. There are no FACTS here, only positions in the mind that are
utterly liquid. Opinions and stances with some overlap.
I like to recognize that "my truth" is just that -- mine. When I talk
about my definition of surrealism, I am sharing my experience with others.
That's it. When I talk to others, I like to hear THEIR definitions, and
grow from that.
But when a collective approaches me and says, "We all believe X," I have
to laugh. I always doubt that five, or six, or a THOUSAND people can all
be walking around with EXACTLY the same beliefs.
And some of the "beliefs" seem so utterly self-deceiving.
I don't particularly CARE to march into the bold future, revolution style,
as some of you want to. The notion of linking the word "surrealism" to
the word "revolution" is laughable to me. Right -- you're going to change
the world by writing poetry? By giving in to your automatic impulses? By
decrying capitalism without quitting your day jobs? Surrealism is going
to make the world a better place?
Give me a break. People who wave the word revolution around tend to be
intellectual, bourgeois, coffee-house nobodies who want to make their
poems sound important. By all means, WRITE and live surrealism. But
don't assume that your automatic writing and surrealist such-and-such is
going to cause the oppressed to cast off their chains and start writing
manifestos.
The word "revolution" is a badge people put on to make their opinions feel
more important. "I'm changing the world!" Sure you are, Spanky. Have
fun.
Surrealism might make your own, personal world a better place. You might
even infect others with the surrealism thought-virus. But will it
revolutionize the world? I doubt it.
When you talk about your definition, when you call it a revolution, a
liberation, a freeing of the collective imagination, you call it THE
definition. Barrett's definition is the OBJECTIVE REALITY definition.
You do this possibly in part because a revolution can never be started
just on an "opinion". It has to be grounded in supposed FACTS.
And maybe your definition has to be THE definition because the notion of
walking on ground that is only tentative, unofficial, unauthoratative, not
based on some lengthy history, gives you the heebie-jeebies.
"I carry on the torch that has been carried on since the 1920s!"
It certain sounds more important than, "I'm following a personal
philosophy vaguely based on some ideas that originated in the 20s!"
I suspect that you are well aware of, and probably even open-minded enough
to accept, dozens upon dozens of definitions of "surrealism" that differ
from your own. However, it is inconvenient to admit such things.
If the surrealist group is genuinely about freedom, then an interpretation
based on the good old days of surrealism is still a branch of surrealism.
Just because you and some of your friends -- "interactions with living
surrealists around the world" -- have decided Freud sucks cheese, that
doesn't make it true. To quote a classic 60s bumpersticker, "Eat shit: a
million flies can't be wrong."
"Reject Freud: a dozen surrealists can't be wrong"? Sure they can.
I find it ironic and sad that you would argue that you and a cluster of
people who have moved away from the original focus of surrealism -- the
unconscious -- possess the TRUE surrealism. It would strike me that you
have no right to the word SURREALISM if you discard its very principles
from the beginning. Historically speaking, I am using the word correctly
and you are not.
Imagine behaviorists rejecting the theories of classical and operant
conditioning, and yet still insisting that they are behaviorists. No
salivating dogs? No Skinner boxes? What the hell is going on?
Sure, surrealism is an evolving idea, but to reject the very BASIC
elements of it -- the unconscious -- and to still call it surrealism?
That seems deceptive. Shouldn't you get a new name for the movement, if
what you are now is so very distance and hardly connected to where you
came from?
> as i've explained before, my perspectives on this subject and my
> "definitions" are _descriptive_, not _proscriptive_. they've evolved from
> considerable theoretical exploration, meditation on readings, and more
> importantly, interactions with living surrealists around the world.
It would be nice if you admitted that your opinions are opinions based on
where your own personal brain has taken you. I don't care to knock down
what you believe in. I feel that you are ENTIRELY welcome to believe what
you believe in -- not that you needed my permission. However, you seem to
think that I need your permission.
Is what I am describing so very distant from surrealism? What I say, what
I feel, what I do is but one more interpretation of the original flavour
of surrealism. My stance is closer to the old boys. They had their
seances, their tarot, and their love for a certain therapist from Vienna.
These are the things that still appeal to me. Call me an anachronism, if
you must -- but to suggest that I have it all wrong is simply poppycock.
> like a tree, surrealist exploration has branched in many directions, but not
> all of these branches are still "risers" after 80 years.
Why not? Why can't they all be "risers"? Why should we judge the
branches we choose not to help grow? Let them grow. It can only make the
surrealism tree all the more beautiful and complex. Branches that grow
down, Barrett, are sometimes called "roots".
> but the most relevant point is: when i encounter a surrealist who still
> thinks Freud is worth pursuing, i can challenge that and we engage in a
> discussion that is rooted in surrealist perspective and theory. and we will
> both gain from such an exchange.
Like surrealism, Freudian theory has evolved. The notion of one guy on
the couch and one guy behind him dozing in a chair isn't the sum of
psychoanalysis anymore. The wacky cocaine hijinks of a Victorian era
caveman hacking up the psyche with stone tools doesn't begin to describe
the entirety of it.
Yes, a lot of the basics are still around -- conscions, unconscious, id,
ego, superego, the Oedipal complex, the irrationality of human beings, the
inability to look at our own behavior and determine why we do what we do,
the notion of a therapist and a client joining together to explore the
person's identity... All of this is still around, but it has changed, it
has grown.
The tree of surrealism grew from the tree of psychoanalysis. You insist
that this other tree is no longer relevant? Hack away the roots, Barrett,
and your surrealist tree is something else -- driftwood.
> i'm simply not allowing you to re-define "surrealism" in your own image _in
> a public forum_.
Re-define? You squawk and squabble over some objective reality that I
don't even care about. My definition is always just that -- my
definition. I'm glad to admit that not everyone agrees with me. If they
did, I would consider my definition fallible. You, on the other hand,
want to define THE surrealism. That, I think, is a sad thing to want to
do.
Define your particular branch, Barrett. You don't own the whole tree.
> you don't have to adopt my position. all you have to do is stop asserting
> that "surrealism" is something that it demonstrably isn't while refusing to
> acknowledge the volumes of surrealist theory and actual living surrealists
> as the one legitimate "source material" for resolving the inevitible
> challenge.
Ah, but one branch of surrealism is my branch. And I constantly admit
that my branch is only that -- one branch. I often argue with people that
the tree is far bigger than they'd like to admit. People often have this
tendency to mistake their particular branch for the entire tree.
But look, over there! A whole bunch of people who paint rather miserable
rip-offs of Dali's work. Is that surrealism? I'm willing to let them be
a branch of the tree, although yet another series of paintings set in some
imaginary desert bores me.
Look! Kafka? A branch? Why not! It has enough elements that an
argument can be made.
I don't particularly care if you like my branch or not. I don't like
yours, and you shouldn't care about that. But when you and your friends
are desperate to saw my branch off the tree -- it's a waste of time and
energy. Especially since it is QUITE clear that my branch has a place
here. Re-read the old surrealist texts, Barrett, and the subconscious is
there. Exploring mysticism is there.
If you think I'm re-charting ground that needs no further charting, FINE.
But don't tell me that my branch is not a part of the tree.
> surrealist project (n., process)
> the fundamental life imperative among surrealists, revolutionary in scope
> and intent. The surrealist project is a continuous process directed toward
> achieving an enhanced reality -- a (sur)reality -- in which the liberated
> imagination is fully integrated into daily living. Surrealists recognize
> this as a collective and collaborative process requiring a social
> transformation as well as a personal one.
I always find your writing and definitions to be excessively complicated
and without any art. My opinion, of course, and quite meaningless.
> [ i should note for those not around at the time that these definitional
> posts were a bit of serious fun in response to and within the context of an
> on-going encounter with several particularly dense posters who were buzzing
> around one of "andrea chen's" periodic appearances. they were not in the
> spirit of pronouncements. and now that i've mentioned "her" name, i suppose
> "andrea" will show up as i expect "she" runs daily vanity searches. ]
Okay, I have to stop here and admit that I am really baffled. Why are all
of you so obsessed with Andrea Chen? I mean, she was here what? A year
ago? And yet you're STILL talking about her! Why? I've practically
forgotten about her, but you guys keep bringing her up OVER and OVER
again. WHY?
She was interesting when she was here, and she regularly made you all look
like fools. Is that why you still dream about her? And Barrett, why do
you STILL question whether or not "she" is a woman? I mean, who cares?
Why do you care? Sure, she might not really be female. So what?
Everything online is factually questionable. Does it really matter if she
has a penis instead of a vagina? Does this pain you in some way?
I really truly and honestly do not understand why you guys cannot let the
memory of Andrea Chen go. It's just plain weird and fucked up and
possibly Freudian in some way, and I really just don't get it.
[my def'n of surrealism at Themestream]
> repost it if you want comments. but if i didn't bother to offer any before,
> i can't say i'll do so now.
Well, then why bother, I suppose?
brandon...@my-deja.com
> I don't believe in the existence of a higher power. I believe in
> spirituality and mysticism on a personal level.
In other words, "I believe in being as vague and as trendy as possible."
Did I ever tell you that my favorite song for the past year or so has
been The Beatles "Happiness is a Warm Gun"?
Sven
Jericho just phoned me up. Apparently, just after my posting, they
experienced a sales surge of 8333%. I have now been made Head Of
Advertizing. I've also altered the product slightly; that magical touch, oh
yes, Cyclon B14: the Kiss of Death! Mmm, those soapy bubbles, that poison
feels so soft on my skin. Buy now!
brandon...@my-deja.com
> ... most of it me thinking out loud ...
I disagree. This is not "thinking" ...
> I've done more reading than you, I suspect, in the area of therapy
> and psychoanalysis.
I've done more reading than you, I suspect, in the area of Surrealism
and Surrealists.
> I like to recognize that "my truth" is just that -- mine. When I talk
> about my definition of surrealism, I am sharing my experience with
> others. That's it. When I talk to others, I like to hear THEIR
> definitions, and grow from that.
You don't seem to like Barrett's, nor do you grow from it. Also, why do
you feel you need to share with us your definition? Why do you not
treat it like a commodity, as you do with confessions? "Hey, I'll trade
you my definition for your definition."
> The notion of linking the word "surrealism" to the word "revolution"
> is laughable to me. Right -- you're going to change the world by
> writing poetry? By giving in to your automatic impulses?
THIS is just ANOTHER reason why your NOT a Surrealist.
> People who wave the word revolution around tend to be intellectual,
> bourgeois, coffee-house nobodies who want to make their poems sound
> important.
I've actually "never" been in a coffee-house, I have no money, and I
don't know any "intellectuals." I also stopped writing "poems" about
three years ago (unless you consider a remix a poem).
> The word "revolution" is a badge people put on to make their opinions
> feel more important. "I'm changing the world!" Sure you are, Spanky.
> Have fun.
You're only humiliating yourself with this post. It says a lot about
your character, and what you value.
> I find it ironic and sad that you would argue that you and a cluster
> of people who have moved away from the original focus of surrealism --
> the unconscious -- possess the TRUE surrealism.
Nik, I'm interested in the act of BEING unconscious, not in the
mythical section of the mind you seem to believe in.
> what you are now is so very distance and hardly connected to where you
> came from?
I can't take this comment very seriously. You haven't even read Mad
Love. You don't even know where Surrealism came from. Maybe you should
read Breton's Lost Steps. There's a good quote in that book on Breton's
position of Spiritualism. If that's where Surrealism came from, then
Barrett, Dale, Cythera, and myself all seem to be on the right path.
> Yes, a lot of the basics are still around -- conscions, unconscious,
> id, ego, superego, the Oedipal complex ...
None of which really exist, but stand as a sad attempt by a rationalist
to rationalize the mind.
> Look! Kafka? A branch? Why not! It has enough elements that an
> argument can be made.
How do you connect this branch from the Existentialist tree to the
Surrealist tree? With tape and glue? Maybe some staples?
> Re-read the old surrealist texts ... Exploring mysticism is there.
I've quoted early texts that state otherwise. Why do you never respond
to them?
> I always find your writing and definitions to be excessively
> complicated and without any art.
Let me see, "complicated" = no art? Hmm... Dali was always intend on
making his paintings "complicated". Does that mean they're not art?
> My opinion, of course, and quite meaningless.
Only because you refuse to think.
Dale Houstman
>
> and apply what you come up with to IT, since after all, in it barrett
> is describing _his_ (and others')"fundamental life imperative", which
> is not necessarily the same as yours.
You have to understand: Nik believes in the "personal" NOT the personal. He
wants everyone to share detsils (relevant or not), but he doesn't like them
to think, because that makes him feel inferior. This is why he is always
railing against the false enemy of "the intellectual." He seems to fear the
act of thinking, finding it inimical to his program of dissolution in tripe.
dmh
Sven
> In article <39bd636e$0$28243$65a9...@news.citilink.com>,
> Then he will have to get his own damn detsils...
>
> :+
>
> c.
detsil (n.) - a tiny disc made of compressed rat's fingers and solid
vinegar. Detsils are regarded as precious by surrealists, and only shown to
others on smambert fording days or at Retch Trials. When the surrealist
finally succumbs to the Unconscious, the detsil is prised from his or her
clutching white fingers and unceremoniously thrown to the Symbol Wolves.
john adams
In case you forget, revolution was in part reaction to war, the 'banalities'
of the world, in addition to the notions of art and literature elitism, and
so on. In
looking back, one could readily see atleast part of the effects that were
the outcome since the early part of last century.
I dont believe it's going to make the world a vastly better place anytime
soon - in fact who here has stated that it is? It may - or may not - improve
the
lives of those who wish to try to understand its principle concerns. Who
dare try to
think in individual or grand scale revolutionary terms.
And does carrying a (bullshit) day job make one a hypocrite because that is
the only method to sustain themselves with today? Conforming to the notion
that individuals must participate in a system of scraping away for the
symbol of money: the goal is to accrue as much as one can and then
retire at 65, or perhaps its more simple: be a model citizen, work an honest
job - it's one to be proud of. If you stop to consider a different
way, or wish to improve upon the current socio-economical order, you are not
only probably elitist, in your
terms, but an ignorant intellectual quasi-revolutionary as well!
>
>Give me a break. People who wave the word revolution around tend to be
>intellectual, bourgeois, coffee-house nobodies who want to make their
>poems sound important. By all means, WRITE and live surrealism. But
>don't assume that your automatic writing and surrealist such-and-such is
>going to cause the oppressed to cast off their chains and start writing
>manifestos.
Calling someone intellectual is a true swear word.
>The word "revolution" is a badge people put on to make their opinions feel
>more important. "I'm changing the world!" Sure you are, Spanky. Have
>fun.
>
>Surrealism might make your own, personal world a better place. You might
>even infect others with the surrealism thought-virus. But will it
>revolutionize the world? I doubt it.
>
>When you talk about your definition, when you call it a revolution, a
>liberation, a freeing of the collective imagination, you call it THE
>definition. Barrett's definition is the OBJECTIVE REALITY definition.
>You do this possibly in part because a revolution can never be started
>just on an "opinion". It has to be grounded in supposed FACTS.
>
>And maybe your definition has to be THE definition because the notion of
>walking on ground that is only tentative, unofficial, unauthoratative, not
>based on some lengthy history, gives you the heebie-jeebies.
>
>"I carry on the torch that has been carried on since the 1920s!"
>
>It certain sounds more important than, "I'm following a personal
>philosophy vaguely based on some ideas that originated in the 20s!"
That is the key, "vaguely" based upon. The problem with your stance is that
any version could equate to a valid definition of surrealism. In that case,
there mine as well be no surrealism to be discussing in the first place.
Surrealism was not based so heavily on psychoanalysis as you would like to
believe.
Many facets were immediately dismissed. The immediate area it touched
upon was the study of the unconscious and dreams (not only restricted to
Freud). I think much of the
remainder of what Freud had to say was bull-shimey, personally. That was
probably somewhat the case for early surrealists as well. I know some groups
quickly dismissed him in favor of jung's unconscious, etc.
>The tree of surrealism grew from the tree of psychoanalysis.
That particular tree wilted away before the sun even rose to shine that
morning!
>You insist
>that this other tree is no longer relevant? Hack away the roots, Barrett,
>and your surrealist tree is something else -- driftwood.
>
>> i'm simply not allowing you to re-define "surrealism" in your own image
_in
>> a public forum_.
>
>Re-define? You squawk and squabble over some objective reality that I
>don't even care about. My definition is always just that -- my
>definition. I'm glad to admit that not everyone agrees with me. If they
>did, I would consider my definition fallible. You, on the other hand,
>want to define THE surrealism. That, I think, is a sad thing to want to
>do.
>
>Define your particular branch, Barrett. You don't own the whole tree.
I think what has been submitted many times is that there are atleast some
fundamental concepts which underly and form what surrealism is concerned
with.
If you would like to be 'revolutionary' enough to change such basic and
inherent
characteristics, or are not happy with its philosophy, you may want to
consider starting your own movement. Then you might easily forgo most of the
objections you raise within the existing one.
>> you don't have to adopt my position. all you have to do is stop
asserting
>> that "surrealism" is something that it demonstrably isn't while refusing
to
>> acknowledge the volumes of surrealist theory and actual living
surrealists
>> as the one legitimate "source material" for resolving the inevitible
>> challenge.
john
barrett john erickson
> [A lengthy rant -- part of it a response to Barrett, most of it me
> thinking out loud.]
>
> "barrett john erickson" (bar...@magneticfields.org) writes:
> > your perspective is limited by your failure to understand the more
> > fundamental project -- the base from which the interest in Freud or the
> > sub/unconscious or mysticism grew and the same base from which i now
reject
> > them, having recognized them as dead ends relative to that fundamental
> > project.
>
> I recognize them not to be dead ends. I've done more reading than you, I
> suspect, in the area of therapy and psychoanalysis. Given that you have
> rejected that area of exploration, I think that's a safe bet.
you have no basis for this statement. i suspect you're wrong (even knowing
focus of your college studies and your predilection for pop-psych munchies).
but i have no interest in trying to remember what books i read 35 years ago,
or even those i read last month, and it isn't relevant anyway.
the difference in our conclusions about this subject is most likely to be
found primarily in the way we approached it (and secondarily in the texts
that approach lead us to select, rather than the quantity read): i with a
skeptical eye, interested but always evaluating the philosophical
assumptions behind the positions taken; you most likely (as with everything
else) because you found it "useful" in some way.
>
> From what I have read, and from the people that I see, the
> unconscious/conscious model still has a lot to offer. Psychoanalytic
> theory still has a lot to offer. It is still alive. We disagree on this
> -- which is fine -- but you insist that a "clinging" to this "outdated
> model" means that I cannot possibly be a real surrealist. Which is
> bullshit.
again your "bit depth" is inadequate to the task.
i _accuse_ you of preferring to cling to your misconceptions about
"surrealism" rather than engage in a process that will challenge and enhance
your understanding of it (and perhaps even convincing me in the processs
that you have a point or two worth listening to). what i "insist" is that
it is you who places yourself outside of "surrealism" by
_clinging_to_these_misconceptions_ while refusing to acknowledge that
surrealist theory, history and texts, and the perspectives of living
surrealists are the one and only "source material" that must be respected in
any discussion of what is or is not compatible with "surrealism".
[ so far none of this has anything to do with your embrace of victorian era
cognitive science. ]
beyond that (and obviously beyond you) i _argue_ that the sub/unconscious is
a descriptive metaphor that has outlived its time and that the enactive
cognitive model holds much more promise for surrealist investigation. i
have and will argue this with surrealists at any opportunity. but i have
never suggested that those who haven't dumped the sub/unconscious model
cannot be "real surrealists". this model is pervasive in western culture
and not everyone has read Varela, and not everyone cares to. i don't expect
every surrealist to share my passion for relatively recent (the last 25
years or so) scientific and theoretical advances in this area.
however, i _do_ expect _any_ surrealist (myself included) to be ready and
able to answer any surrealist's challenge from within the context of
surrealist perspectives, theory and practice.
it is your determined lack of comprehension that reeks of bullshit. and,
consistent with your history, the balance of your post is also entirely
based on misrepresentations of my position which i've brought to your
attention many times.
but no amount of correction seems to register with you. perhaps this is
because from a position of defiant ignorance, someone who believes in a
concept like "my truth" can believe that however he interprets what someone
writes, that is what they actually intended to say -- no matter how many
times he's told otherwise.
but i'll hit a few more points on my way out...
>
> As always, your bias isn't a bias to you -- it's "the truth". Such a
> stance infuriates me, because it is so very primitive and childish, and
> yet pretends to be so informed. It's a classic defense mechanism.
>
> "My opinion is the truth, and your opinion is just an opinion."
since it's handy, also from 12/98:
truth (n.,)
a social agreement on particular characteristics or attributes of shared
reality (the greater the consensus, the more compelling the "truth"). As
such, it is significantly less interesting than reality. [syn: fact]
>
> How many times have I seen this, over and over again? Little boys and
a more interesting question that occurs to me is:
"how many times have you 'seen this' that it was actually there?"
> girls pretending that THEY KNOW, when there is no such thing as KNOWING.
> Everything changes constantly -- especially in the world of art and
> philosophy. There are no FACTS here, only positions in the mind that are
> utterly liquid. Opinions and stances with some overlap.
if you bake your cakes longer the batter will set up.
>
> I like to recognize that "my truth" is just that -- mine. When I talk
> about my definition of surrealism, I am sharing my experience with others.
> That's it. When I talk to others, I like to hear THEIR definitions, and
> grow from that.
again, "truth" is a social concept not a personal concept.
[ what you are really talking about would better be described as a
distinction between "personal reality" and "shared reality". but i'm not
going to try to go into this now. ]
"my truth" is a silly and irrelevant concept in a social context (e.g., when
using it to defend an assertion everyone you tell it to sees as "false").
and in a personal context, "my truth" is just a contemptuous refuge for
those too lazy to explore or defend their perspectives when challenged.
>
> But when a collective approaches me and says, "We all believe X," I have
> to laugh. I always doubt that five, or six, or a THOUSAND people can all
> be walking around with EXACTLY the same beliefs.
>
> And some of the "beliefs" seem so utterly self-deceiving.
we're not talking about "beliefs". you're the one who has "beliefs" (you
have stated that you believe anything and everything), not i.
i "believe" nothing. i find expressions of "belief" -- of any kind --
offensive in the extreme. to "believe" is to surrender the imagination to
banality.
i don't know how to say that more bluntly. but i'm sure it didn't strike
you with sufficient violence to deter you from accusing me of trying to
force my "belief" in "orthodox surrealism" on you again before the week is
out.
>
> I don't particularly CARE to march into the bold future, revolution style,
> as some of you want to. The notion of linking the word "surrealism" to
> the word "revolution" is laughable to me. Right -- you're going to change
> the world by writing poetry? By giving in to your automatic impulses? By
> decrying capitalism without quitting your day jobs? Surrealism is going
> to make the world a better place?
this is about as clear a demonstration as you've made that you don't have
any idea what "surrealism" is.
> [...]
> When you talk about your definition, when you call it a revolution, a
> liberation, a freeing of the collective imagination, you call it THE
> definition. Barrett's definition is the OBJECTIVE REALITY definition.
> You do this possibly in part because a revolution can never be started
> just on an "opinion". It has to be grounded in supposed FACTS.
again from 12/98:
reality (n.,)
usually referring to manifest reality or reality-as-experienced, this is a
word in significant transition due to the advancing probes of science and
art. It is now recognized as an enactive process and requires distinction
between its sub-processes before any in-depth discussion so as to avoid
significant confusion:
latent reality
personal reality
shared reality
>
> And maybe your definition has to be THE definition because the notion of
> walking on ground that is only tentative, unofficial, unauthoratative, not
> based on some lengthy history, gives you the heebie-jeebies.
this is about as clear a demonstration as you've made of how little you've
understood any of my posts (on enactive cognition or "surrealism" or
anything else).
> [...]
> Sure, surrealism is an evolving idea, but to reject the very BASIC
> elements of it -- the unconscious -- and to still call it surrealism?
> That seems deceptive. Shouldn't you get a new name for the movement, if
> what you are now is so very distance and hardly connected to where you
> came from?
as i said yesterday, i've spent quite a bit of time pondering what was most
common to the incredible diversity found among surrealists, what
distinguished them from others even as they were so different from each
other.
[ i suspect i've spent more time doing this than you have, but that isn't
really important. and, to be fair, i don't have the disadvantage of having
to decide who the surrealists are with every new day the way you do. ]
the "unconscious" is not the "very BASIC element" of "surrealism".
releasing the imagination from its constraints and integrating it into an
enhanced reality was always the central issue. the "sub/unconscious" was
where the early surrealists thought the imagination was to be found in its
purest state, so that is where they focused their investigations. if they'd
thought the imagination was to be found in the left kidney, they would've
focused their investigations there, but the science of the time led them to
believe the imagination was closely linked to the "sub/unconscious".
the science of my time, leads me to think otherwise, so i look elsewhere.
> [...]
> I always find your writing and definitions to be excessively complicated
> and without any art. My opinion, of course, and quite meaningless.
i'm not making art here i'm trying get you to see something that appears to
have too much detail for your screen resolution to handle. you refuse to
change your settings and i refuse to dumb it down to the point where you can
see something, but it is no longer what i was trying to get you to see.
>
> > [ i should note for those not around at the time that these definitional
> > posts were a bit of serious fun in response to and within the context of
an
> > on-going encounter with several particularly dense posters who were
buzzing
> > around one of "andrea chen's" periodic appearances. they were not in
the
> > spirit of pronouncements. and now that i've mentioned "her" name, i
suppose
> > "andrea" will show up as i expect "she" runs daily vanity searches. ]
>
> Okay, I have to stop here and admit that I am really baffled. Why are all
> of you so obsessed with Andrea Chen? I mean, she was here what? A year
> ago? And yet you're STILL talking about her! Why? I've practically
> forgotten about her, but you guys keep bringing her up OVER and OVER
> again. WHY?
the point of the note was to explain, to others who weren't around or had
long forgotten, the context in which i made the original posts, which as i
said were a bit of fun. taken out of context (and omiting those entries
related directly to ac's presence) that motivation is far from obvious.
the extent of my interest in ac on "her" periodic returns is to help contain
the toxic spill.
the quotations are merely an expression of my continuing disrespect. and
they began many years ago, not because of gender doubt, but because of
species doubt (as i've explained before, there was a time many years ago
when a series of sterile and irrelevant non-responses bearing "her" name led
us to suspect that perhaps someone's AI experiment had gone terribly wrong).
john adams
barrett john erickson wrote in message
<39bdbe6f$0$28259$7f89...@newsreader.visi.com>...
>
>beyond that (and obviously beyond you) i _argue_ that the sub/unconscious
is
>a descriptive metaphor that has outlived its time and that the enactive
>cognitive model holds much more promise for surrealist investigation. i
>have and will argue this with surrealists at any opportunity. but i have
>never suggested that those who haven't dumped the sub/unconscious model
>cannot be "real surrealists". this model is pervasive in western culture
>and not everyone has read Varela, and not everyone cares to. i don't
expect
>every surrealist to share my passion for relatively recent (the last 25
>years or so) scientific and theoretical advances in this area.
All right, just out of curiosity, what causes the unconscious model to have
zero relevance today?
i am speaking in terms of the descriptive metaphor, not a slab of meat that
resides at the base of the brain, or elsewhere. You speak of the enactive
subprocesses - now aren't these quite the same thing or atleast something
similar? Such processes that take place below the level of awareness; also
functions that are automatic - not only of habit of reactive motion and
everyday process, but creative action,at some level or another, as well.
Additionally, we have moments of attempting to resolve a problem, only to
have it realized in finished form, via intuition it would seem, while
completely immersed in something else or nothing whatsoever. I think you're
probably familiar with it all though and i could go on and on.
I have yet to fully embrace the writings of Varela and or others due in
part to other current interests in reading elsewhere that are taking my
time. Plus, at the first few glances i wasn't completely swept off my feet,
but im not ruling it out yet, just saving the rest for the back burner.
john
brandon...@my-deja.com
barrett wrote:
> the "unconscious" is not the "very BASIC element" of "surrealism".
> releasing the imagination from its constraints and integrating it
> into an enhanced reality was always the central issue.
> the "sub/unconscious" was where the early surrealists thought the
> imagination was to be found in its purest state, so that is where
> they focused their investigations. if they'd thought the imagination
> was to be found in the left kidney, they would've focused their
> investigations there, but the science of the time led them to believe
> the imagination was closely linked to the "sub/unconscious".
brandon...@my-deja.com
beautiful. Its unfortunate that little Nikki will never read it.
barrett john erickson wrote:
> ... in a personal context, "my truth" is just a contemptuous refuge
> for those too lazy to explore or defend their perspectives when
> challenged.
I take it that this "my truth" complex that Nikki has developed is the
source of his "running". Often times when I attempt to have a serious
discussion with the boy he either doesn't respond or completely changes
the subject.
I tried to explain to him that avoiding discussions is only a way
of "running" from reality, but he got all violent and mean. He called
me names (*fuckface* was one of them) and nothing got resolved. What
should I do, doc? The kid is confused & outta control.
Dale Houstman
> In article <39bd636e$0$28243$65a9...@news.citilink.com>,
> "Dale Houstman" <dm...@citilink.com> wrote:
> >
>
"detsil: the feeling one gets when contemplating a Jackson Pollack painting
as critiqued by a Campfire girl."
dmh
Dale Houstman
"Sven" <svenh.this...@blueyonder.co.uk> wrote in message
news:B5E33EF4.125F3%svenh.this...@blueyonder.co.uk...
This is the form of "detsil" as derived from the Old Dutch "deeytsul"
meaning "thin wooden towels in a tin box display."
The definition I quote in response to cythera is - of course - from the
Latin "detsu" meaning "tripe in crow blood juice."
An easy mistake to make...
dmh
>
Dale Houstman
"barrett john erickson" <bar...@magneticfields.org> wrote in message
news:39bdbe6f$0$28259$7f89...@newsreader.visi.com...
>
>
> > Sure, surrealism is an evolving idea, but to reject the very BASIC
> > elements of it -- the unconscious -- and to still call it surrealism?
> > That seems deceptive. Shouldn't you get a new name for the movement, if
> > what you are now is so very distance and hardly connected to where you
> > came from?
>
> as i said yesterday, i've spent quite a bit of time pondering what was
most
> common to the incredible diversity found among surrealists, what
> distinguished them from others even as they were so different from each
> other.
>
This also demonstrates a basic flub in Nik's own approach. How many times
has he accused us of treating Breton like a god, of being afraid to
challenge his ideas? Yet when we do, he accuses us of abandoning the "old
ways." It is precisely these sorts of disconnects in his cognition that -
more than any details of the conversation at hand - reduce his monologues to
worthless goo.
But as I said a long while ago, Nik seems to be permanently trapped in a
linguistic web of his own making, one in which no definition can be
discerned, and which consequently has no potential for change. I assume this
is a defensive stance, and only wonder (without really caring) what event or
series of events brought him to such an unworthy and pointless posture?
The answer to this may very well be the only interesting thing about him.
dmh
Dale Houstman
"john adams" <johnqa...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:adgv5.146658$6y5.95...@news2.rdc2.tx.home.com...
>
> In case you forget, revolution was in part reaction to war, the
'banalities'
> of the world, in addition to the notions of art and literature elitism,
and
> so on. In
> looking back, one could readily see atleast part of the effects that were
> the outcome since the early part of last century.
> I dont believe it's going to make the world a vastly better place anytime
> soon - in fact who here has stated that it is? It may - or may not -
improve
> the
> lives of those who wish to try to understand its principle concerns. Who
> dare try to
> think in individual or grand scale revolutionary terms.
I think also that one has to think of revolution in terms of a process. We
are educated to see only the "highlights" of history, so that revolution
appears to be a sudden bursting of the seams, but in fact all revolutions
are part of a long process, in which a lot of "little people" merely sit
about attempting to think of the world in a different light. In this way, I
feel no hesitation in saying that certain ideas that even I possess are part
of a revolution. Not the part (obviously) that will be taught in underfunded
school systems of the future (one of which Nik appears to have been squeezed
through), but important enough in its own way.
At any rate, as any surrealist knows, the only important change is that one
which we bring to our own sensibilities and share with others. In this way
things do eventually get changed, for the worse or better who can tell?
dmh
Dale Houstman
>
>
>
>
> All right, just out of curiosity, what causes the unconscious model to
have
> zero relevance today?
I am not immersed in Varela (sounds gooey), but I would venture that the
difference lies in the faux-mysticism of the tripartite mind division, which
(quite remarkably for the time) does appear to describe and predict behavior
with greater "accuracy" than the "soul/body" model. Yet the
ego/superego/libido are not places in the brain: they exist in a useful
model called the mind; which is a sort of spiritual brain. Cognitive
theories (well or otherwise) attempt to locate all sensibility within the
neurology of the brain and body, de-souling the brain further, and putting
the investigation on a physical basis (as much as possible: the knowledge of
neurology is still at a preliminary state), so that the potential for true
discovery (Columbus landing in America rather than conjecturing about
America) is increased. I make no claim to understand enactive cognition, but
I long ago came to feel that there was indeed no such thing as an
unconscious, which now strikes me as a very useful but not descriptive term
for a set of complex processes we only have a tentative grip upon. I
suspected a long time ago that this division into three was merely expedient
and entirely too "neat" to be a sustainable notion. I tend to thing of the
universe in terms of a very complicated unity: either one thing or the
result of an infinitely complex collaboration.
dmh
Dale Houstman
<brandon...@my-deja.com> wrote in message
news:8pks5k$sg4$1...@nnrp1.deja.com...
dmh
barrett john erickson
"john adams" <johnqa...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:MAjv5.147808$6y5.96...@news2.rdc2.tx.home.com...
have
> zero relevance today?
i think the most significant factor is that it disembodies cognitive
functions, perpetuating the mind/body dichotomy, while drawing clearly
artificial boundaries in a process that has no such boundaries.
the sub/unconscious was a descriptive metaphor from the beginning. a way of
making certain real events/experiences/observations available for scientific
study. that may have been quite "useful" in the beginning, but i think
today's scientist are beginning to recognize the error inherent in an
approach that tries to rope something off for study when what it is they
want to understand is actually the very complex interactions that process
has with other processes.
> i am speaking in terms of the descriptive metaphor, not a slab of meat
that
> resides at the base of the brain, or elsewhere. You speak of the enactive
> subprocesses - now aren't these quite the same thing or atleast something
> similar?
only if we make the mistake of considering them as such. we have all been
trained to approach such stuff reductively, trying to understand larger
complex processes by breaking them down into smaller bits and studying
those. it is a habit that isn't easy to escape.
this model begins with the recognition that no interactive process can be
understood if approached in this manner. so studying cognition becomes a
phenomenological investigation of the process _as we experience it_ and
never allows that full context to be forgotten.
[ but yes, i am aware of the language trap i'm forced into here, for
instance, even refering to "the imagination" is a regrettable short hand.
at some point in a more extended discussion we would have to address this
and perhaps stop using that term as well. oh well... ]
> Such processes that take place below the level of awareness; also
> functions that are automatic - not only of habit of reactive motion and
> everyday process, but creative action,at some level or another, as well.
> Additionally, we have moments of attempting to resolve a problem, only to
> have it realized in finished form, via intuition it would seem, while
> completely immersed in something else or nothing whatsoever. I think
you're
> probably familiar with it all though and i could go on and on.
> I have yet to fully embrace the writings of Varela and or others due in
> part to other current interests in reading elsewhere that are taking my
> time. Plus, at the first few glances i wasn't completely swept off my
feet,
> but im not ruling it out yet, just saving the rest for the back burner.
awareness is best understood as a continuum in this model. for instance,
even bacteria fall within the scope of its definition of cognitive
processes. but there _is_ obviously a difference between the degree to
which bacteria and humans are "aware" of various events.
i think this difference is better explained by correlating that "awareness
scale" to the degree of complexity found in the autopoietic processes that
are involved.
the "self" emerges at a relatively high level of complexity (as you know,
children are not born with self-awareness, and appear to develop this only
as their cognitive functions develop sufficient complexity). and this sense
of "self" can disappear with reduced brain function. so it isn't surprising
that less complex cognitive functions, monitoring the ambient temperature
for instance, that form the bulk of our cognitive activity, remain below
that threshold of awareness we associate with consciousness. and there's no
_need_ to posit them as somehow qualitatively different from other cognitive
processes, any more than there is a need to think of driving a car down a
freeway at 8am on a sunday as qualitatively different from driving the same
car down the same freeway during a weekday rush hour. it is the interactive
complexity of the overall experience that is different, not the nature of
the specific task.
this can be applied, of course, to anything that is normally attributed to
the function of a sub/unconscious, so that they can be understood as
basically the same sort of cognitive actions (physiologically) but requiring
less functional complexity than that at which self-awareness emerges.
the workings of the imagination are, i would argue, of the _highest_ order
of functional complexity sitting at the high extreme of the "awareness
scale". rather than working away while submerged in the subconscious
ghetto, and suddenly breaking the surface of our awareness, i think a better
case can be made that the imagination is like the over-all top-level
monitor/manager of our cognitive functions, identifying the existing and
recurring patterns and overseeing the assembly of those patterns into our
sense of continuity, and occasionally forming new patterns that we
experience as creative ideas, the marvelous, etc.
for the surrealist, the task is to free our highest cognitive function from
the unnecessary assembly of repetitious patterns so as to free up more of
its capacity for finding and creating new patterns.
barrett john erickson
"Dale Houstman" <dm...@citilink.com> wrote in message
news:39be0ed5$1$28256$65a9...@news.citilink.com...
yeah, that too.
Nikolaus Maack
> i _accuse_ you of preferring to cling to your misconceptions about
> "surrealism" rather than engage in a process that will challenge and enhance
> your understanding of it (and perhaps even convincing me in the processs
> that you have a point or two worth listening to).
When you tell me that enactive cognition is a profitable area of
exploration and then cannot explain the theory in a way that makes sense
to anyone -- even to your own allies -- I get a little suspicious. I'm
not one to trust the words of authority figures but would rather judge the
words themselves. You have set yourself up to be an authority on the
topic of enactive cognition, but so far your words are incoherent.
You must ackowledge that I have tried to understand your explanation of
this theory. As far as I can tell from what you've presented, it sounds
like near gibberish. You've admitted that it's tough to describe. Fine.
What you have described so far doesn't interest me enough to pursue it
further. Unless you manage to explain it in a way that makes some sense,
I won't look at the field again. You supposedly have no problem with
that.
It seems to me that you're not actually complaining about my inability to
engage with living surrealists. You seem to be complaining that I am not
engaging with the living surrealists that you like and respect. I should
be as deliriously happy as you are when I hear all about "enactive
cognition".
But why should I be? After all, if I'm interested in psychoanalysis and
therapy and the unconscious and Freud and Jung, why would I read up on
people who insist that all of it is trash? I've found use in these areas,
others haven't. Fine. We're on different wavelengths, different
branches. Why should I study these other perspectives?
Sure, I should be open to other belief systems, and I should judge my own
beliefs critically. But it's ridiculous to suggest, because I haven't
thrown my loves out the window in an effort to embrace their opposites,
that I'm not engaging in real "exploration". I am.
> what i "insist" is that
> it is you who places yourself outside of "surrealism" by
> _clinging_to_these_misconceptions_ while refusing to acknowledge that
> surrealist theory, history and texts, and the perspectives of living
> surrealists are the one and only "source material" that must be respected in
> any discussion of what is or is not compatible with "surrealism".
What you call "misconceptions" I call "different areas of exploration".
You seem to think that if only I understood your perspective, I'd see that
you are right. If only I would try to understand. If I don't see that
you're right, then clearly I'm being deliberately ignorant. This is a
foolish stance to take. Even if I understood fully your enactive
cognition and your particular "revolutionary" attitude towards surrealism,
I would not necessarily accept such "truths".
And you have to admit, Barrett, what you are trying to sell me here is not
THE TRUTH. It's not even SURREALIST TRUTH. It is YOUR TRUTH. Your
branch of the tree is what you're selling, and it seems to piss your off
that I ain't buying.
I know that the idea of "personal truths" causes you to foam at the mouth,
but it's an idea that makes perfect sense to me. Postmodern theory
recognizes that the truth of a white, middle-class, middle-aged, CEO of a
large corporation is not going to be the same as the truth of an Asian,
working-class, twenty-something corner store clerk. If both of these
people, for whatever reason, suddenly decided to embrace surrealism, I
imagine they each would approach it from VERY different angles.
But they would both be surrealists in my book. Why not?
> beyond that (and obviously beyond you) i _argue_ that the sub/unconscious is
> a descriptive metaphor that has outlived its time and that the enactive
> cognitive model holds much more promise for surrealist investigation. i
> have and will argue this with surrealists at any opportunity.
That being the case, I would highly recommend that you find a way to
describe enactive cognition in a way that makes sense to people other than
yourself. Because up until this very second, you're not very good at
making anyone else understand what the hell enactive cognition is, what it
means, what its implications are, etcetera.
Which tends to leave me with the same sort of feeling I get when someone
tries to sell Scientology to me.
> but i have
> never suggested that those who haven't dumped the sub/unconscious model
> cannot be "real surrealists". this model is pervasive in western culture
> and not everyone has read Varela, and not everyone cares to. i don't expect
> every surrealist to share my passion for relatively recent (the last 25
> years or so) scientific and theoretical advances in this area.
You could have fooled me. You've been knocking my "clinging" to the
"ignorant" unconscious model for quite some time now. I see this as part
and parcel of your insistance that I'm not a "real surrealist".
"If only Nik would try to understand, he'd see that he is wrong."
I don't particularly care whether you think I'm a real surrealist of not.
What irks me is the simple-mindedness of a person who insists on going
around determining whether or not someone IS a real surrealist or not.
Christians do this all the time. Dave is a Christian, but he owns porn.
Is he a real Christian? Let's decide! Feminists do this all the time.
Susan is a feminist, but she likes bondage. Is she a real feminist?
Hell, no! Buddhists do this all the time. Andrew says he's a buddhist,
but he can't remember the definition for "boddisatva" -- hell, he doesn't
even know how to spell it! Is Andrew a real buddhist? No! Let's crucify
him!
These are STUPID questions. It is possible to be a feminist and own porn,
and it is possible to be a surrealist and to reject 80% of what you
believe in, Barrett. Fuck the revolution. Who cares about that aspect?
To hell with enactive cognition. Who gives a shit about collaboration?
Screw all you people, I'm going to paint and write and read and think
about this stuff. I'll talk my talk and it'll piss you off. Fine. You
have your branch, I have my branch. We can lob fruit at each other if
you'd like, but for the love of all that is insane, can we at least
ackowledge we're on the same tree?
> however, i _do_ expect _any_ surrealist (myself included) to be ready and
> able to answer any surrealist's challenge from within the context of
> surrealist perspectives, theory and practice.
And if they can't answer your "challenges", they're not really a
surrealist? Why should they have to answer your challenges in the first
place? Why should anyone care if they get your official stamp of
authority on their surrealism identity card? Who are you to judge? Who
put you in charge?
> but no amount of correction seems to register with you. perhaps this is
> because from a position of defiant ignorance, someone who believes in a
> concept like "my truth" can believe that however he interprets what someone
> writes, that is what they actually intended to say -- no matter how many
> times he's told otherwise.
"Defiant ignorance"? Oh boy.
I once had the pleasure of witnessing someone's rebuttal in a debate. He
said to his opponent, "Clearly you have not thought this through. Re-read
what I wrote, think about what I've said, and you'll see that I'm right."
Every time we talk, you say the same thing to me.
"Well, obviously if you're not convinced by now, you must be deliberately
stupid."
> truth (n.,)
> a social agreement on particular characteristics or attributes of shared
> reality (the greater the consensus, the more compelling the "truth"). As
> such, it is significantly less interesting than reality. [syn: fact]
It seems odd to me that you can write this, and not understand the idea of
personal truths. One group's truth can be at complete odds with another
group's truth, and they both can be "right". In other words, there is
room for opposite branches on one tree.
> again, "truth" is a social concept not a personal concept.
Clearly it is both, given that society is made up of individuals. Also,
it's obvious that a person can believe in something -- a truth -- that his
social group does not believe in.
> [ what you are really talking about would better be described as a
> distinction between "personal reality" and "shared reality". but i'm not
> going to try to go into this now. ]
Different terminology, same concept. Why the hell are you so hung up on
terminology anyhow? My mind still boggles over our conversation on the
topic of "authentic desire" and "inauthentic desire". You seemed
genuinely irritated when I pointed out that all of this terminology could
be scrapped and replaced with the flakey new age notion of "following your
heart" and "be true to yourself".
> "my truth" is a silly and irrelevant concept in a social context (e.g., when
> using it to defend an assertion everyone you tell it to sees as "false").
"My truth" is not a defense in an argument, but a recognition that people
approach "reality" from different perspectives. There are different kinds
of people with their different sorts of truths. They are all
questionable, these truths, but in most cases, they are equally valid.
A question comes to mind -- how big does a social group have to be before
they have what you'd call a "truth"? Let's look at your truth definition
again.
> truth (n.,)
> a social agreement on particular characteristics or attributes of shared
> reality (the greater the consensus, the more compelling the "truth"). As
> such, it is significantly less interesting than reality. [syn: fact]
So, can the social agreement be between two people? Does that mean those
two people have a "truth"? Married couples often seem to have "truths"
that apply only to themselves. If it's okay with two people, why not with
one? Have you not noticed how fragmented and existential our world has
become?
> and in a personal context, "my truth" is just a contemptuous refuge for
> those too lazy to explore or defend their perspectives when challenged.
Please. How many challenges a day am I supposed to take on before I just
get bored and stop talking to people?
"But if you're a nihilist, how can you believe in love?"
Jesus. Once you get caught up in explaining yourself over and over again,
it's a never-ending chore. By all means, accept challenges once in a
while, but even the best swordsman has to decline a challenge now and then
-- otherwise his arm will fall off.
> we're not talking about "beliefs". you're the one who has "beliefs" (you
> have stated that you believe anything and everything), not i.
> i "believe" nothing. i find expressions of "belief" -- of any kind --
> offensive in the extreme. to "believe" is to surrender the imagination to
> banality.
There is not much difference between believing in "everything and nothing"
and believing in "nothing". At least, I see it as more or less the same.
Does your believing in nothing make you a nihilist, at least in part?
Does this mean I get to watch Dale and Brandon throw stupid nihilist jokes
your way?
"If you believe in nothing, why don't you just shit your pants instead of
shitting in a toilet?"
>> I don't particularly CARE to march into the bold future, revolution style,
>> as some of you want to. The notion of linking the word "surrealism" to
>> the word "revolution" is laughable to me. Right -- you're going to change
>> the world by writing poetry? By giving in to your automatic impulses? By
>> decrying capitalism without quitting your day jobs? Surrealism is going
>> to make the world a better place?
>
> this is about as clear a demonstration as you've made that you don't have
> any idea what "surrealism" is.
I was being vaguely sarcastic on the topic of "revolution".
> as i said yesterday, i've spent quite a bit of time pondering what was most
> common to the incredible diversity found among surrealists, what
> distinguished them from others even as they were so different from each
> other.
Why would you bother to do this? Why don't you chase your surrealism
instead of wasting time determining a common element? If you chase the
common element, does that make your chase more significant and meaningful?
> the "unconscious" is not the "very BASIC element" of "surrealism".
> releasing the imagination from its constraints and integrating it into an
> enhanced reality was always the central issue. the "sub/unconscious" was
> where the early surrealists thought the imagination was to be found in its
> purest state, so that is where they focused their investigations.
The original stated purpose behind surrealism was to unite the conscious
and the unconscious. You have chosen to interpret that as meaning to
liberate the imagination. I tend to agree with that interpretation, mind
you.
> i'm not making art here i'm trying get you to see something that appears to
> have too much detail for your screen resolution to handle. you refuse to
> change your settings and i refuse to dumb it down to the point where you can
> see something, but it is no longer what i was trying to get you to see.
What, precisely, are you trying to get me to see?
[Why are you obsessed with Andrea Chen?]
> the point of the note was to explain, to others who weren't around or had
> long forgotten, the context in which i made the original posts, which as i
> said were a bit of fun. taken out of context (and omiting those entries
> related directly to ac's presence) that motivation is far from obvious.
>
> the extent of my interest in ac on "her" periodic returns is to help contain
> the toxic spill.
>
> the quotations are merely an expression of my continuing disrespect. and
> they began many years ago, not because of gender doubt, but because of
> species doubt (as i've explained before, there was a time many years ago
> when a series of sterile and irrelevant non-responses bearing "her" name led
> us to suspect that perhaps someone's AI experiment had gone terribly wrong).
I still find the Andrea Chen obsession that you and Brandon and Dale
demonstrate to be very strange. I saw her stance as an interesting,
alternative opinion to the dominant group. She was playful, interesting,
and somewhat crazy -- my favorite combination. Someone comes in and
shares her perspective and you call it a "toxic spill". Remind me which
one of us isn't open to exploration?
Don't you think it's a little too convenient to "define away" all your
worries?
"I don't have to look at that, because that's not surrealism. That's
Andrea Chen, and she's a bad person. That is, if she really is a person."
Are you familiar with the notion of avoiding unpleasant truths by turning
a person into an "enemy", an "other", a "non-human"?
brandon...@my-deja.com
> Dave is a Christian, but he owns porn. Is he a real Christian? Let's
> decide! Feminists do this all the time. Susan is a feminist, but she
> likes bondage. Is she a real feminist? Hell, no! Buddhists do this
> all the time. Andrew says he's a buddhist, but he can't remember the
> definition for "boddisatva" -- hell, he doesn't even know how to
> spell it! Is Andrew a real buddhist? No! Let's crucify him!
Dave can repent. Buddhist only have to follow the four noble truths,
not remember the vocabulary. As for susan, do you beat her like you
beat Machelle?
> Please. How many challenges a day am I supposed to take on before I
> just get bored and stop talking to people?
I'm hoping this will be the last one.
> The original stated purpose behind surrealism was to unite the
> conscious and the unconscious.
I'm not sure I agree.
"Beloved imagination, what I most like in you is your unsparing
quality ... The mere word "freedom" is the only one that still excites
me ... To reduce the imagination to a state of slavery---even though it
would mean the elimination of what is commonly called happiness---is to
betray all sense of absolute justice within oneself (1st manifesto p. 4-
5).
"Surrealism is not a new means or expression, or an easier one, nor
even a metaphysic of poetry. It is a means of total liberation of the
mind and of all that resembles it ... Surrealism is not a poetic form.
It is a cry of the mind turning back on itself, and it is determined to
break apart its fetters, even if it must be by material hammers!" (The
Declaration of January 27, 1925)
> I still find the Andrea Chen obsession that you and Brandon and Dale
> demonstrate to be very strange.
I haven't mention Chen's name in over two years, fuckface.
john adams
Dale Houstman wrote in message
<39be0ed4$0$28256$65a9...@news.citilink.com>...
I agree, and when you look back tthrough the course of history you can see
the unfolding process take place, little by little, revolutions that unravel
here or collapse there, and all at differing levels, though for the most
part, as you say, it is a constant that rests in the hands of all the many
"little" people.
john
john adams
Dale Houstman wrote in message
I have never bought the tripartite divisions of the brain; it always sounded
more like hogwash than hogspit. I remember as a kid, around 13 or 14 (when i
first got cable anyway), one of my first introductions to modern psychology
watching a program that attempted to describe the way the mind works through
an analogy, that went somethign like: A person (labeled the conscious mind)
walks into the office of a top executive (supposed to have represented the
subconscious or something similar), the person drops off a package, and then
leaves. The package symbolized a query of some sorts, if i recall right.
Eventually the package is retrieved back to the conscious package carrier,
and in the form of an answer, additional information, etc. Amazing, isn't
it?
But i never envisioned the unconscious to fall into this loose and saucey
realm of mythos.
To me it is exaclty that - a collection of processes, but those below the
level of awareness.
Are you aware of other versions of the so-called unconscious? I coudl loose
the term entirely, but would still continue to imagine the same thing - its
just convienient to use it, and its too bad there is a lot of misconception
and bad connoatation it tends to give off.
As for the last statement, i agree again; i picture it in those terms often
as well.
john
Dale Houstman
<brandon...@my-deja.com> wrote in message
news:8pm24r$apn$1...@nnrp1.deja.com...
>
> > I still find the Andrea Chen obsession that you and Brandon and Dale
> > demonstrate to be very strange.
>
> I haven't mention Chen's name in over two years, fuckface.
>
none of us mention her much: this is Nik's delusion. At any rate this is
very strange considering it comes from UberMom's "second-best tool" and from
a fellow who admittedly returned to these environs upon the beckoning of
said Matrix.
Anyway, nihilist that he is, why does he find anything strange? none of it
matters to him in any way.
I find it strange that such a loose-bowelled mind can go on existing.
dmh
dmh
john adams
barrett john erickson wrote in message
>
>"john adams" <johnqa...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
>news:MAjv5.147808$6y5.96...@news2.rdc2.tx.home.com...
>> All right, just out of curiosity, what causes the unconscious model to
>have
>> zero relevance today?
>
>i think the most significant factor is that it disembodies cognitive
>functions, perpetuating the mind/body dichotomy, while drawing clearly
>artificial boundaries in a process that has no such boundaries.
>
>the sub/unconscious was a descriptive metaphor from the beginning. a way
of
>making certain real events/experiences/observations available for
scientific
>study. that may have been quite "useful" in the beginning, but i think
>today's scientist are beginning to recognize the error inherent in an
>approach that tries to rope something off for study when what it is they
>want to understand is actually the very complex interactions that process
>has with other processes.
There are a lot of studies ive read that are leaning towards a more
"hollistic"
approach in this respect. Some of them that im a little familiar with; they
rely
on the unconscious term only to help identify those processes that work
below that threshold of awareness, but yet, i dont see this as a drawing of
unnecessary borders, any more than calling the arm and the forearm two
distinct sections of the body if only to describe their differences for the
time being in a particular situation - we are forced from the start to do
this when describing two seperate individual cognitive processes. In other
words, certain disctintions inevitably may be drawn for simplicity's sake,
however, it doesnt prevent us from observing our nature and process at a
wider, more encompassing angle. Anway, if this 'particular' use of the
terminology "the unconscious" is still troublesome, i dont really see why it
should be so.
>> i am speaking in terms of the descriptive metaphor, not a slab of meat
>that
>> resides at the base of the brain, or elsewhere. You speak of the enactive
>> subprocesses - now aren't these quite the same thing or atleast something
>> similar?
>
>only if we make the mistake of considering them as such. we have all been
>trained to approach such stuff reductively, trying to understand larger
>complex processes by breaking them down into smaller bits and studying
>those. it is a habit that isn't easy to escape.
But it is possible to study subprocesses in order to gain greater
understanding of the larger.
The only problem is, you are right: it is often done in an
over-reductive manner.
>this model begins with the recognition that no interactive process can be
>understood if approached in this manner. so studying cognition becomes a
>phenomenological investigation of the process _as we experience it_ and
>never allows that full context to be forgotten.
I think i can understand that, but it's still useful of course to study
cognition from those other angles that are available to us atleast in
supplementative fashion.
>[ but yes, i am aware of the language trap i'm forced into here, for
>instance, even refering to "the imagination" is a regrettable short hand.
>at some point in a more extended discussion we would have to address this
>and perhaps stop using that term as well. oh well... ]
Well, how do we go about that? Can we not speak in terms of a duality where
there is the larger picture here, and then there is the broken down
schematic to refer to as well?
>> Such processes that take place below the level of awareness; also
>> functions that are automatic - not only of habit of reactive motion and
>> everyday process, but creative action,at some level or another, as well.
>> Additionally, we have moments of attempting to resolve a problem, only to
>> have it realized in finished form, via intuition it would seem, while
>> completely immersed in something else or nothing whatsoever. I think
>you're
>> probably familiar with it all though and i could go on and on.
>> I have yet to fully embrace the writings of Varela and or others due in
>> part to other current interests in reading elsewhere that are taking my
>> time. Plus, at the first few glances i wasn't completely swept off my
>feet,
>> but im not ruling it out yet, just saving the rest for the back burner.
>
>awareness is best understood as a continuum in this model.
Certainly it is best to observe it as a continuum of sorts.
>for instance,
>even bacteria fall within the scope of its definition of cognitive
>processes. but there _is_ obviously a difference between the degree to
>which bacteria and humans are "aware" of various events.
>
>i think this difference is better explained by correlating that "awareness
>scale" to the degree of complexity found in the autopoietic processes that
>are involved.
>
>the "self" emerges at a relatively high level of complexity (as you know,
>children are not born with self-awareness, and appear to develop this only
>as their cognitive functions develop sufficient complexity).
Actually, i recall the egg sac from which i emerged as a child. My eyes
stretched towards the sun as my hairless, featherless body baked naked in
the hot acqueous solution which encapsulated me for many months before i
sprouted serpent's wings.
>and this sense
>of "self" can disappear with reduced brain function. so it isn't
surprising
>that less complex cognitive functions, monitoring the ambient temperature
>for instance, that form the bulk of our cognitive activity, remain below
>that threshold of awareness we associate with consciousness. and there's
no
>_need_ to posit them as somehow qualitatively different from other
cognitive
>processes, any more than there is a need to think of driving a car down a
>freeway at 8am on a sunday as qualitatively different from driving the same
>car down the same freeway during a weekday rush hour. it is the
interactive
>complexity of the overall experience that is different, not the nature of
>the specific task.
That's pretty much true i suppose. All I point to are the levels at which we
are conscious of those tasks and processes and some of the different
pathways they do occur on, yes in more or less reductivist terms, if we must
say so.
>this can be applied, of course, to anything that is normally attributed to
>the function of a sub/unconscious, so that they can be understood as
>basically the same sort of cognitive actions (physiologically) but
requiring
>less functional complexity than that at which self-awareness emerges.
>
>the workings of the imagination are, i would argue, of the _highest_ order
>of functional complexity sitting at the high extreme of the "awareness
>scale". rather than working away while submerged in the subconscious
>ghetto, and suddenly breaking the surface of our awareness, i think a
better
>case can be made that the imagination is like the over-all top-level
>monitor/manager of our cognitive functions, identifying the existing and
>recurring patterns and overseeing the assembly of those patterns into our
>sense of continuity, and occasionally forming new patterns that we
>experience as creative ideas, the marvelous, etc.
Here again i tend to agree. Although i think my thoughts scoot around into
different perspectives when i attempt to exeriment with alternative
solutions on the subject and scheme of things. And, in other words, i dont
think we have it nailed down just yet. But that is pretty close, for where
we are concerned.
>for the surrealist, the task is to free our highest cognitive function from
>the unnecessary assembly of repetitious patterns so as to free up more of
>its capacity for finding and creating new patterns.
>
>
Yes, that is certainly true. The clearer our minds are of the tedious tasks
(or anything)
the more efficient the processing usually. Of course, my thinking apparatus
doesn't operate like a cpu, or so atleast i'd hate to think it does. Some
days its closely suited to a low power abacuss.
john
Dale Houstman
>
> Dale Houstman wrote in message
> <39be0ed5$1$28256$65a9...@news.citilink.com>...
> >
> >"john adams" <johnqa...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
> >news:MAjv5.147808$6y5.96...@news2.rdc2.tx.home.com...
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >>
>
> realm of mythos.
> To me it is exaclty that - a collection of processes, but those below the
> level of awareness.
But it strikes me that this division operates as a myth: it is a
simplication of natural processes used to explain the unexplainable, just
like soul and Zeus. All very useful in their place of course: this isn't a
competition really. I do think this tripartite division goes a long way
towards explicating these processes, but its simplication seems dated at
this far point of neurological investigation: which - of course - has
created (and will create) its own set of myths: the canard about us using
"10 % of our brains" for instance - which still pops up quite frequently but
appears to have no basis in observable fact. Or "the lizard brain" (sort of
a holdover from the old "man's embryonic evolution mimics mankind's
evolution" shtick), or Jayne's poetic suppositions. And so on. So the power
of human myth-making (thankfully enough) continues. I tend to think of such
things as poetic intuitions that may (or may not) guide our understanding to
a new level.
dmh
Laura
> > Do you really believe that we should all bury our noses in books
>
cythera replied:
> If you stick around, I think you'll find that some people on this ng
> love to read -- and write -- about the surrealist project and their
> exploration of it. And that's why there are folks here who can answer
> our questions.
I've been around long enough to see this myself. I love reading and
writing. Maybe I should have worded my question more delicately:
Is there a certain level of education one must attain (either in an
institution or on one's own) in order to be considered a valuable
participant in the conversations here?
> > I haven't read much on surrealism at all. I'd be the first to admit
> > that I know extremely little about surrealism,
>
> What's important though is how you approach your learning and
> exploring, and how open you are able to be.
I agree, and I think this answers my question above. :)
> > For interests sake, I have a question, and please believe me it is
> > sincere. Do you (and anyone else here that cares to answer) feel
> > that someone who knows absolutely nothing of surrealism, never heard
> > a peep about it, could produce a surrealist work, think like a
> > surrealist, or carry out some type of surrealist action?
>
> If you read or re-read the beginning of my second post to johamar in
> the "Fossilized" thread he began, you'll find my answer there.
> I'm not going to tell you outright because I want to encourage you
> to be a careful reader, and also to read between the lines: be
> intuitive.
Well I'll ignore the condescending tone for the hope that I've misread it.
I'd be happy to look back at your post to find your opinion. However, I do
not read each and every post on this newsgroup as I do not have time. If
this is what it takes to be a careful reader or to be intuitive, then I just
don't have what it takes.
Anyway, I do appreciate your response and apologies on taking so long to
write a reply. My computer crashed this weekend and now I'm sick with a
cold.
Laura
Laura
> Not to be ungracious, but (alhough it is a conceit shared by the person in
> question) is simply not true. In fact, for a time (until he was called
back
> to the fold by his UberMom), he was quite gone, and conversations and
shared
> projects went on quite as well (and I think a little better) than they did
> while his pathetic presence was felt.
God I hope I'm not the UberMom. That term made me snort out loud Dale ;)
[...]
> Yes, surrealist work can be produced by even those who are uneducated in
the
> intellectual ways of the movement, mainly because surrealism is not an art
> movement, and so its aesthetics are not bound up in stylistic fetishes.
I think it's this concept that I find so difficult to grasp (most likely a
result of not reading enough) as I have only seen the results of surrealism,
which could all be argued to be stylistic in some sense, and to be works of
some kind of art or writing. Am I correct in thinking that it is a frame of
mind or consciousness as opposed to an actual act or creation?
> But I don't see why it would hurt to know something about the subject in
the
> group title, a "rule" that is no more onerous than an engineering group
> expecting new participants to have at least a cursory understanding of the
> subject under investigation. Of course, the forum is free and all are
> welcome, but it may be difficult to gather much from this arena, partly
> because you seem resistant to the simplest investigations of a phenomenon,
> and partly because there are elements in the mix dedicated to
misconstruing
> statements and to a rather shallow evocation of nonsense.
It doesn't hurt to know something about the subject whatsoever, and I agree
that it would be nice if everyone in the group knew at least something. I
truly believe everyone in the group knows something and all of us have a
tiny piece to share. Granted, some of us have bigger pieces than others...
(not me though).
Is that a generic "you" in the sentence "because you seem resistant to the
simplest investigations.. etc"?
If it was aimed at me as well, I'd like to know why you would assume that I
am resistant to investigating further, reading more, or continuing my
education on the topic? If it's not aimed at me, please know that I have a
terrible cold and my brain is functioning a levels below 1%. I tend to jump
to conclusions at times like this.
Laura
john adams
Dale Houstman wrote in message
>
>"john adams" <johnqa...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
>news:IPxv5.150483$6y5.96...@news2.rdc2.tx.home.com...
>>
>> Dale Houstman wrote in message
>> <39be0ed5$1$28256$65a9...@news.citilink.com>...
>> >
>> >"john adams" <johnqa...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
>> >news:MAjv5.147808$6y5.96...@news2.rdc2.tx.home.com...
>> >>
>> >>
>> >>
>> >>
>>
>> But i never envisioned the unconscious to fall into this loose and
saucey
>> realm of mythos.
>> To me it is exaclty that - a collection of processes, but those below the
>> level of awareness.
>
>But it strikes me that this division operates as a myth: it is a
>simplication of natural processes used to explain the unexplainable, just
>like soul and Zeus.
I'm not entirely sure what you mean. Is it that you yourself feel these
processes are not capable of being explained? Well, if that is the case, i
know we are not exactly out of the dark with it, and, just maybe, we won't
ever have our finger over it completely.
>All very useful in their place of course: this isn't a
>competition really. I do think this tripartite division goes a long way
>towards explicating these processes, but its simplication seems dated at
>this far point of neurological investigation: which - of course - has
>created (and will create) its own set of myths: the canard about us using
>"10 % of our brains" for instance - which still pops up quite frequently
but
>appears to have no basis in observable fact. Or "the lizard brain" (sort of
>a holdover from the old "man's embryonic evolution mimics mankind's
>evolution" shtick), or Jayne's poetic suppositions. And so on. So the power
>of human myth-making (thankfully enough) continues. I tend to think of such
>things as poetic intuitions that may (or may not) guide our understanding
to
>a new level.
Well, that's true enough. And despite our different methods to describe the
process, we (thankfully enough) carry on just as abley to embrace and marvel
at the beauties of life via its direct experience.
john
john adams
brandon...@my-deja.com wrote in message <8pm24r$apn$1...@nnrp1.deja.com>...
>"Surrealism is not a new means or expression, or an easier one, nor
>even a metaphysic of poetry. It is a means of total liberation of the
>mind and of all that resembles it ... Surrealism is not a poetic form.
>It is a cry of the mind turning back on itself, and it is determined to
>break apart its fetters, even if it must be by material hammers!" (The
>Declaration of January 27, 1925)
By the way that's Artauds writing into the declaration i believe.
I don't recall if he wrote all of it or just part.
john
brandon...@my-deja.com
> By the way that's Artauds writing into the declaration i believe.
> I don't recall if he wrote all of it or just part.
I think I read that he wrote the entire piece, probably under the
dictation of the group. Its my favorite.
Dale Houstman
>
>
>
> > >[ but yes, i am aware of the language trap i'm forced into here, for
> > >instance, even refering to "the imagination" is a regrettable short
hand.
> > >at some point in a more extended discussion we would have to address
this
> > >and perhaps stop using that term as well. oh well... ]
But it would be a shame, wouldn't it, considering how much beauty is packed
into those five syllables? I hope the term survives any future
physically-based investigations, even if it takes on new meanings.
> >
dmh
Dale Houstman
>
> Dale Houstman wrote in message
> <39bedd24$0$28257$65a9...@news.citilink.com>...
> >
> >"john adams" <johnqa...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
> >news:IPxv5.150483$6y5.96...@news2.rdc2.tx.home.com...
> >>
> >> Dale Houstman wrote in message
> >> <39be0ed5$1$28256$65a9...@news.citilink.com>...
> >> >
> >> >"john adams" <johnqa...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
> >> >news:MAjv5.147808$6y5.96...@news2.rdc2.tx.home.com...
> >> >>
> >> >>
> >> >>
> >> >>
> >>
> >> But i never envisioned the unconscious to fall into this loose and
> saucey
> >> realm of mythos.
> >> To me it is exaclty that - a collection of processes, but those below
the
> >> level of awareness.
> >
> >But it strikes me that this division operates as a myth: it is a
> >simplication of natural processes used to explain the unexplainable, just
> >like soul and Zeus.
>
> I'm not entirely sure what you mean. Is it that you yourself feel these
> processes are not capable of being explained? Well, if that is the case, i
> know we are not exactly out of the dark with it, and, just maybe, we won't
> ever have our finger over it completely.
No: I meant that these processes (cognition, dreams, memory, imagination)
are as yet relatively unexplainable, not permanently so, although I think
there is a limit to understanding our own organs of comprehension, due to a
vague idea of "loop back" that I have.
>
>
>
> Well, that's true enough. And despite our different methods to describe
the
> process, we (thankfully enough) carry on just as abley to embrace and
marvel
> at the beauties of life via its direct experience.
>
And this brings me back to my "loop back" idea. In some way I think the
limit to "full comprehension" is one of the reason for the marvel involved.
Neurological investigations, while all quite legitimate and interesting, do
sometimes strike me as a sophisticated form of "navel gazing." One does
frequently desire to merely "know" the powers of cognition work well enough
for appreciation, rather than knowing which nerve route you are taking to
work today.
dmh
Dale Houstman
"Laura" <or...@gurlmail.com> wrote in message
news:8TCv5.3089$Y7.7...@news1.rdc1.ab.home.com...
> Dale said:
> > Not to be ungracious, but (alhough it is a conceit shared by the person
in
> > question) is simply not true. In fact, for a time (until he was called
> back
> > to the fold by his UberMom), he was quite gone, and conversations and
> shared
> > projects went on quite as well (and I think a little better) than they
did
> > while his pathetic presence was felt.
>
> God I hope I'm not the UberMom. That term made me snort out loud Dale ;)
Don't worry. You're not.
>
> [...]
> > Yes, surrealist work can be produced by even those who are uneducated in
> the
> > intellectual ways of the movement, mainly because surrealism is not an
art
> > movement, and so its aesthetics are not bound up in stylistic fetishes.
>
> I think it's this concept that I find so difficult to grasp (most likely a
> result of not reading enough) as I have only seen the results of
surrealism,
> which could all be argued to be stylistic in some sense, and to be works
of
> some kind of art or writing. Am I correct in thinking that it is a frame
of
> mind or consciousness as opposed to an actual act or creation?
All objects will have a style, but (unlike Cubism for example) you will not
find a guiding aesthetic in surrealist work: think of Magritte, Matta,
Duchamp, Arp, Miro, etc. It is not the style of these works that define
their place in surrealism. Of course, texts and art works will be created
(they are forms of communication, and everyone has to and wants to
communicate), but in surrealism these objects serve as documentations of a
process rather than as the goal.
>
>
> Is that a generic "you" in the sentence "because you seem resistant to the
> simplest investigations.. etc"?
Yes...
>...please know that I have a terrible cold and my brain is functioning a
levels below >1%. I tend to jump to conclusions at times like this.
If your brain is truly functioning at this level, I applaud your abilities
at the keyboard. A more adroit amoeba is difficult to imagine!
>
> Laura
>
>
>
Dale Houstman
>
> Did you get roped into "Scouting"?
>
Once. When I was a boy living in the Mojave Desert I was a Cub Scout for a
time. I think we made fruit baskets out of melted 45s and collected clothing
for some vague "poor people." We also went to a Jamboree (a dismal noisy
affair) at which I recall they were giving a demonstration of fingerprinting
which our little Uberkommander wanted us all to join in with. For some
reason, I rebelled. Probably saved me from being nabbed at one of my
convenience store robberies.
It all ended (quite gloriously) when - as we were living in a desert - I
asked the Scoutmeister if we could wear shorts and short-sleeved shirts
instead of those stifling full uniforms. He rather precipitously said no,
and I rather thoughtlessly cursed at him. That was the end of my military
career.
dmh
barrett john erickson
no, i see your point here (no different really than my continuing to refer
to an "imagination"). and a discussion with someone who insists on using
the term "subconscious" could certainly move on once that kind of definition
is understood.
[ and i'm assuming by "awareness" you mean what amounts to that cognitive
level where we've become aware of our "self". ]
in general, however, and in the context of a discussion of cognition among
lay-folk like me, i think the term carries too much victorian baggage and
needs to be avoided.
[ and nik, of course, can't even understand that it isn't his perspectives
on cognition or his use of the term "subconscious" i'm refering to when i
say he clings to his misconceptions about "surrealism". so i can't imagine
he'd ever be able to convince me that his usage of the term was benign. ]
>
> >> i am speaking in terms of the descriptive metaphor, not a slab of meat
> >that
> >> resides at the base of the brain, or elsewhere. You speak of the
enactive
> >> subprocesses - now aren't these quite the same thing or atleast
something
> >> similar?
> >
> >only if we make the mistake of considering them as such. we have all
been
> >trained to approach such stuff reductively, trying to understand larger
> >complex processes by breaking them down into smaller bits and studying
> >those. it is a habit that isn't easy to escape.
>
>
> But it is possible to study subprocesses in order to gain greater
> understanding of the larger.
> The only problem is, you are right: it is often done in an
> over-reductive manner.
if the study attempts to isolate the sub-process from its interactive
context, it is fundamentally flawed.
>
> >this model begins with the recognition that no interactive process can be
> >understood if approached in this manner. so studying cognition becomes a
> >phenomenological investigation of the process _as we experience it_ and
> >never allows that full context to be forgotten.
>
>
> I think i can understand that, but it's still useful of course to study
> cognition from those other angles that are available to us atleast in
> supplementative fashion.
not sure what you mean here. elaborate a bit?
> >[ but yes, i am aware of the language trap i'm forced into here, for
> >instance, even refering to "the imagination" is a regrettable short hand.
> >at some point in a more extended discussion we would have to address this
> >and perhaps stop using that term as well. oh well... ]
>
>
> Well, how do we go about that? Can we not speak in terms of a duality
where
> there is the larger picture here, and then there is the broken down
> schematic to refer to as well?
i may not have had enough coffee yet. elaborate on this one a bit also?
barrett john erickson
> [...]
>
> But i never envisioned the unconscious to fall into this loose and saucey
> realm of mythos.
> To me it is exaclty that - a collection of processes, but those below the
> level of awareness.
> Are you aware of other versions of the so-called unconscious? I coudl
loose
> the term entirely, but would still continue to imagine the same thing -
its
> just convienient to use it, and its too bad there is a lot of
misconception
> and bad connoatation it tends to give off.
ah! that's really the point.
the terms used aren't very important once the "embedded processes"
perspective is there. they just need to be agreed upon. after all, we're
dealing with the same phenomena as Freud or those before him.
but the _common usage_ of these terms (like the "subconscious" or "reality")
are often the fundamental roadblocks to achieving that perspective.
-- 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
==============================================
>
barrett john erickson
which, as i recall the conversation, i associated with Heisenberg
uncertainty(?).
Laura
> >...please know that I have a terrible cold and my brain is functioning a
> levels below >1%. I tend to jump to conclusions at times like this.
>
> If your brain is truly functioning at this level, I applaud your abilities
> at the keyboard. A more adroit amoeba is difficult to imagine!
Well now I'm a blushing amoeba!
Laura
john adams
barrett john erickson wrote in message
>no, i see your point here (no different really than my continuing to refer
>to an "imagination"). and a discussion with someone who insists on using
>the term "subconscious" could certainly move on once that kind of
definition
>is understood.
>
>[ and i'm assuming by "awareness" you mean what amounts to that cognitive
>level where we've become aware of our "self". ]
Well, yes, self-awareness; but also awareness of the process, that ultimate
process, ie God. No, im just tripping you up here. What i do make reference
to are those processes that carry on without the 1) conscious intent
(meaning intent for the moment; as they -are- more or less an accumulation
of intents) of the individual 2) present conscious awareness of the
individual, and also i might further describe some of them as mechanisms of
thought/imagination/tasking, etc that occur at varying levels nearer and
further out from our "consciousness of the moment", asleep, awake, while
concentrating heavily on something, day dreaming of something else, on
drugs, in a coma, and so forth. You get the idea. I dont think its
appropriate to assign our cognitive flow as this: awake we are self-aware,
the 'us' and all our subprocesses, while asleep a switch suddenly goes off,
and yet our imaginations continue to 'fire' about with no control.
>in general, however, and in the context of a discussion of cognition among
>lay-folk like me, i think the term carries too much victorian baggage and
>needs to be avoided.
I tend to avoid using the term subconcious because of the connotations I
subjectively interpret when reading or hearing it used. It may very well
help point more towards that victorian age, where we are not careful. But
unconscious atleast for me (again subjectively) speaks of various processes
and (more minor) controls that interpenetrates with our current awareness
and is also intertwined with our sleep. I think what i am picturing at the
moment and writing (or what may be interpretted through it) may be two
different things now that i read back, but c'est la vie.
>[ and nik, of course, can't even understand that it isn't his perspectives
>on cognition or his use of the term "subconscious" i'm refering to when i
>say he clings to his misconceptions about "surrealism". so i can't imagine
>he'd ever be able to convince me that his usage of the term was benign. ]
>
>
>>
>> >> i am speaking in terms of the descriptive metaphor, not a slab of meat
>> >that
>> >> resides at the base of the brain, or elsewhere. You speak of the
>enactive
>> >> subprocesses - now aren't these quite the same thing or atleast
>something
>> >> similar?
>> >
>> >only if we make the mistake of considering them as such. we have all
>been
>> >trained to approach such stuff reductively, trying to understand larger
>> >complex processes by breaking them down into smaller bits and studying
>> >those. it is a habit that isn't easy to escape.
>>
>>
>> But it is possible to study subprocesses in order to gain greater
>> understanding of the larger.
>> The only problem is, you are right: it is often done in an
>> over-reductive manner.
>
>if the study attempts to isolate the sub-process from its interactive
>context, it is fundamentally flawed.
Where then do we draw the line of isolating (or making a disctinction)
ourselves from the enviroment and its place in time? Is it arbitrary?
>> >this model begins with the recognition that no interactive process can
be
>> >understood if approached in this manner. so studying cognition becomes
a
>> >phenomenological investigation of the process _as we experience it_ and
>> >never allows that full context to be forgotten.
>>
>>
>> I think i can understand that, but it's still useful of course to study
>> cognition from those other angles that are available to us atleast in
>> supplementative fashion.
>
>not sure what you mean here. elaborate a bit?
And so in other words i mean that it is useful and necessary to examine the
discrete pieces but not to forget to place the puzzle back as a whole in
order to view it in proper context.
>> >[ but yes, i am aware of the language trap i'm forced into here, for
>> >instance, even refering to "the imagination" is a regrettable short
hand.
>> >at some point in a more extended discussion we would have to address
this
>> >and perhaps stop using that term as well. oh well... ]
>>
>>
>> Well, how do we go about that? Can we not speak in terms of a duality
>where
>> there is the larger picture here, and then there is the broken down
>> schematic to refer to as well?
>
>i may not have had enough coffee yet. elaborate on this one a bit also?
>
I think, hopefully, the above statement shoudl clarify it some. Its as far
as i go for now before the sleep afterburners decide to kick in.
john
john adams
Dale Houstman wrote in message
In reading the last statement, i tend to think maybe you didnt catch all of
my drift. I could just as easily "lose my curiosity" in a minute for how it
is we think and proceed along just as happily with living and dying in other
areas of my living preoccupation, on other, perhaps more, romantic levels of
the poetic infatuation, and die just as wise, or more having done so. But
navel grazing can be fun too...
john
Dale Houstman
dmh
barrett john erickson
>
> "barrett john erickson" <bar...@magneticfields.org> wrote in message
> news:39bfa9f6$0$28251$7f89...@newsreader.visi.com...
> >
> >
> >
> > > >instance, even refering to "the imagination" is a regrettable short
> hand.
> > > >at some point in a more extended discussion we would have to address
> this
> > > >and perhaps stop using that term as well. oh well... ]
>
packed
> into those five syllables? I hope the term survives any future
> physically-based investigations, even if it takes on new meanings.
certainly.
and as long as it retains that beauty among surrealists, while avoiding
popular corrosion, it is precisely the term to use.
barrett john erickson
>
> barrett john erickson wrote in message
> <39bfa9f6$0$28251$7f89...@newsreader.visi.com>...
>
> >no, i see your point here (no different really than my continuing to
refer
> >to an "imagination"). and a discussion with someone who insists on using
> >the term "subconscious" could certainly move on once that kind of
> definition
> >is understood.
> >
> >[ and i'm assuming by "awareness" you mean what amounts to that cognitive
> >level where we've become aware of our "self". ]
>
>
> Well, yes, self-awareness; but also awareness of the process, that
ultimate
> process, ie God. No, im just tripping you up here.
bastard! i chipped a tooth before i got to that sentence of disclaimer.
> What i do make reference
> to are those processes that carry on without the 1) conscious intent
> (meaning intent for the moment; as they -are- more or less an accumulation
> of intents) of the individual 2) present conscious awareness of the
> individual, and also i might further describe some of them as mechanisms
of
> thought/imagination/tasking, etc that occur at varying levels nearer and
> further out from our "consciousness of the moment", asleep, awake, while
> concentrating heavily on something, day dreaming of something else, on
> drugs, in a coma, and so forth. You get the idea. I dont think its
> appropriate to assign our cognitive flow as this: awake we are self-aware,
> the 'us' and all our subprocesses, while asleep a switch suddenly goes
off,
> and yet our imaginations continue to 'fire' about with no control.
no problem with that.
it's like thinking of "awareness" as an auto-variable "noise gate". yes?
> [...]
> >
> >if the study attempts to isolate the sub-process from its interactive
> >context, it is fundamentally flawed.
>
>
> Where then do we draw the line of isolating (or making a disctinction)
> ourselves from the enviroment and its place in time? Is it arbitrary?
there's no line to be drawn.
its simply a matter of how the problem or subject of study is defined for
the purposes of investigation. and then conducting that investigation in a
way that doesn't deny the presence and participation of the investigator in
the events being studied -- by pretending for instance that the actions of
the investigator (the "measurement") has no effect on what is found (think
Heisenberg).
[and beyond that, we should remember that the "investigator" is also the
"subject" of the investigation when we're dealing with matters of
cognition -- even if he/she is ostensibly investaging someone else's
cognitive function.]
>
> >> >this model begins with the recognition that no interactive process can
> be
> >> >understood if approached in this manner. so studying cognition
becomes
> a
> >> >phenomenological investigation of the process _as we experience it_
and
> >> >never allows that full context to be forgotten.
> >>
> >>
> >> I think i can understand that, but it's still useful of course to study
> >> cognition from those other angles that are available to us atleast in
> >> supplementative fashion.
> >
> >not sure what you mean here. elaborate a bit?
>
>
> And so in other words i mean that it is useful and necessary to examine
the
> discrete pieces but not to forget to place the puzzle back as a whole in
> order to view it in proper context.
>
i do think it is a mistake to examine embedded processes like cognition,
social systems, etc. as if they were "discrete pieces". even if you do put
the piece back into the puzzle afterwards.
this, because the kind of pieces we are talking about, when removed from the
puzzle lose their defining shape.
scot...@earthlink.net
Maack) wrote:
> I have tried to understand your explanation of
>this theory. As far as I can tell from what you've presented, it sounds
>like near gibberish.
Nik
You've said you enjoy reading about "therapy".
Find some books on family systems theory. You'll find a kind of
Ecological perspective about behavior that has parallels
to barrett's thinking.
Dale Houstman
>
> "Dale Houstman" <dm...@citilink.com> wrote in message
> news:39bff428$0$28257$65a9...@news.citilink.com...
> >
> > "barrett john erickson" <bar...@magneticfields.org> wrote in message
> > news:39bfa9f6$0$28251$7f89...@newsreader.visi.com...
> > >
> > >
> > >
for
> > > > >instance, even refering to "the imagination" is a regrettable short
> > hand.
> > > > >at some point in a more extended discussion we would have to
address
> > this
> > > > >and perhaps stop using that term as well. oh well... ]
> >
> packed
> > into those five syllables? I hope the term survives any future
> > physically-based investigations, even if it takes on new meanings.
>
> certainly.
>
> and as long as it retains that beauty among surrealists, while avoiding
> popular corrosion, it is precisely the term to use.
>
general the idea of imagination is seen as feeble and idealistic. This
denigration is enough reason for me to continue its use. And - anyway - in
this day and age quite an acreage of language is debased and strangled
("peacekeeper" "vision" "love"): I wouldn't quite know where to start with
the pruning shears. It seems to me that - for now - we should go on
attempting - against all odds - to reclaim (liberate) its power, even if
only for ourselves.
Or replace it with "fish paste"
dmh
Dale Houstman
>
>
> I'm curious (as usual): what do you (and anyone else who wants to
> respond, of course) think "genius" is?
>
I think it's a word that means next to nothing. Everybody who makes a
million dollars by tossing old people into the street is a genius nowadays.
The Romans used it pretty specifically (considering the state of their
psychology) to mean 'the guiding principle" of any person's abilities. In
this way, everyone had genius, and one only had to make subjective
judgements as to the value of that genius.
I used to use the word as freely as anybody: John Lennon's a genius, Roy
Rogers is a genius, Tony Orlando's a genius! But it strikes me as an elitist
word nowadays, consigned to anyone who plays the game well: Madonna's a
genius. By assigning it as an attribute of existence one spreads it out
pretty evenly.
In most cases it simply means you find another person's accomplishments
enticing: for some Ty Cobb's a genius, and for others he is an odious bum.
Who knows?
dmh
Dale Houstman
"Fascinan" <fasc...@aol.com> wrote in message
news:20000914213709...@ng-fm1.aol.com...
> Dale (on the term "genius"):
>
> >In most cases it simply means you find another person's accomplishments
> >enticing: for some Ty Cobb's a genius, and for others he is an odious
bum.
> >Who knows?
> >
>
player
> who slides into 2nd base with his cleats up in the facial area of the
opponent.
> I think of "spurious" because of the spiked shoe similarities. But, as a
> baseball player he was truly exceptional - in this contextual sense he was
a
> genius.
no real argument here, except to say that I think the term has been so
bandied about that - as a semantic commodity - it's lost whatever oomph it
might have had. But -sure - if we are going to use the term, Ty's as good a
choice as any. As baseball goes, it don't get much better than that.
>
> I liken genius to those people, even occurences, that smash consensuality,
that
> transcend what is to be expected. A genius, or something that could be
claimed
> as genius, never has to be glazed in moral juices, or beneficial for the
> masses. Take, for example, Col. Kurtz speaking about the genius of
> cold-blooded soldiers..."If I had 10 legions of men who could have done
> that...the genius..sheer genius of that (hacking off inoculated arms of
> children)"
>
> There is great genius in discover. Newton, who hit a creative height with
> Principia, was a genius. It wasn't enough for him to play with some
insights,
> he pulled Physics seemingly out of nowhere.
>
> Puff Daddy is not a genius in my opinion.
I'd agree, but there is a modern class of "performer" composed of
"promotional geniuses" : Madonna fits here I think. I suppose we have to say
that she has bloated a very small ability into a huge success by dint of a
persistance in marketing that might - by some - be termed genius. But at
that point I start to dislike the word immensely. Bill Gates is a genius?
Donald Trump is a real estate genius? Bush has "vision." Etc. There is a
certain discouraging dilution here.
>
> Everyone in here has copius amounts of imaginative prowess. I wouldn't be
> wrong in speculating that there are a few geniuses in this very newsgroup.
You could be wrong.
dmh