Brandon Makes Mistakes
Nikolaus Maack
People trying to put religion into Surrealism, Brandon says, is like a
GROUP of democrats (who all, supposedly, know what it means to be a
democrat) confronted with a republican who says his shpiel.
"Hey! My stuff is about being a democrat too!" says yonder republican.
The MAIN flaw with this analogy, as far as I can see, is that Brandon has
it backwards. Most of the surrealists in this newsgroup have an open mind
towards religion and surrealism and any overlaps in the philosophies.
Brandon, in this case, is the republican stepping forward and saying, "You
democrats have it all wrong! The way a democrat party should be run is
like this..." But what Brandon says is, "There is no room for religion in
surrealism! All religion must be destroyed!"
Is this the widely held belief of all the people in this newsgroup? I
don't think so. Is it the widlely held belief of surrealists all over the
world? I don't know. I suspect the idea is open to debate. Frankly, I
don't care what MOST surrealists believe. If we take a vote and decide
that yes, there is no room for religion in surrealism, I ain't gonna
change.
"Hey! You got your religion in my surrealism!"
"You got your surrealism in my religion!"
Together: "They both taste great!"
Furthermore, the idea of comparing surrealism to politics depresses the
hell out of me. "Don't we all know what surrealism is?" Brandon seems to
ask. "We're all the same, in this group. We all believe in the same
thing. We are a cohesive whole! We are a MOVEMENT!"
God, I hope not. I hope we are all approaching surrealism in our own
unique way. Let's keep a little anarchy in the stew, shall we?
Brandon then goes on to say that so many people in here seem eager to talk
about how Taoism and Buddhism overlap with Surrealism. Uh, I think I'm
the only person who has been saying this. Me. I'm the one. I am an
entire group. I had no idea.
My real problem with Brandon's approach is that he cares about history,
social groups, and societal definitions. I couldn't care less about any
of that stuff. Brandon seems to say, endlessly, that we must be true to
the tradition of surrealism. We follow in the footsteps of great men and
must honor their tradition and their beliefs and their whatever. Keep the
faith, maintain the old school traditions, don't wander from the original
intention of the movement. In other words, turn surrealism INTO a
religion, and keep surrealist philosophy pure.
Screw that. Such a path leads to stagnation and death. I would like my
philosophies to be muddy. If I see overlaps in Taoism and surrealism,
bully for me. I will share my ideas with others, and if they disagree,
fine. If they tell me I am wrong and must stop and "Why dontcha go preach
it to the Taoist newsgroup?" then I have a problem.
BTW, I think if I went into a Buddhism newsgroup and said, "I noticed
there are common links between surrealism and Buddhism," they would be
open to such a discussion. Sure, there might be one jerk who gets all
upset and says, "Go take it to the surrealist newsgroup!" but that's what
we have here in this group, isn't it?
Buddhism summary:
>1. Life is suffering.
>2. Suffering is caused by desire.
>3. Stop the desire.
This is not that different from surrealism at all. It all depends on how
you look at it. How about we translate it like this?
1. Every day life is based on illusion.
2. Suffering is caused by illusions.
3. Dig past the illusions.
Yes, Taoism talks about being passive towards life. But Taoism also says
that life has a flow and a pattern and a meaning hidden behind every day
reality. Isn't the connection between this idea and surrealism obvious?
If we look past the dogma of philosophies and religions we discover
perspectives are not that different at all. The Buddha said that all is
illusion. My personal understanding of surrealism is that a surrealist
takes symbols (illusions) and mixes them in strange new combinations
(melting watches) in order to make a person's mind leap beyond the
illusion to something grander. A surrealist tries to get people to
question their reality. This is PRECISELY what Buddhism tries to do. I'm
not saying surrealism equals Taoism equals Buddhism. I'm saying, "Look!
Neat and useful overlaps that can help our understanding."
Attempting to find meaning beyond mundane every day existence is a common
desire. In fact, most religions seem to try to do this. People see every
day reality and become depressed. Life seems utterly meaningless. What
purpose is there in all of this? Religion, any religion, offers a
suggestion of what lies behind the every day.
Unfortunately, most religions state their opinion of what matters as fact.
Hey, just like Brandon stating that he knows for a fact what surrealism is
supposed to be! "The way to truth is through the subconscious and
Freudian theory!" Well, that's one way, not necessarily THE way. That's
one take on surrealism, not necessarily THE way. Sure, it's the
traditional way, but that doesn't mean it's the way it has to be.
The enemy is not religion or surrealism but dogma, attempts at defining
phisilophies, and maintaining some kind of order. Fuck order. Fuck
dogma. Fuck definitions.
I want no purity in my life. Keeping surrealism -- or any philosophy --
pure is a fool's task. Brandon is that fool.
N.
Ka...@webtv.net
to God! Then, buy him an ice cream cone with pieces of his own liver in
it. This is a stupid group! Let's die!
Coretta Scott King
Brandon J. Freels
to buy him an ice soul! Wait fool, in his own liver is "one" within it.
The stupid is a gross poop! Let's roll the dye!
King Scott Coretta
Brandon J. Freels
recent post by Dale Houstman? I wonder what Mr. Barrett can say about your
theories? I would bet they are more on my side than yours.
2. Go tap dancing with Talysman! Before you there have been others
(Talysman), and we fly-swatted them away. Shoo! Go!
3. I nevered said we could not move the movement along, but turning it into
something completely different (like you are proposing) is something I am
completely against. I will not let you waltz into alt.surrealism spouting
your Oriental junk in an attempt to convert everyone. I think many of the
Surrealist here are much to intellegent to listen to you. Your right I am a
fool --- for responded to such moronic bullshit as yours!
4. Fool! Desire is essential to the Surrealist cause. No desire, no
surrealism --- you are surrealist in your "desire" to annoy me like a fly,
and I am surrealist in my "desire" to respond to your bullshit! Damn it!
There can be no irrational, or surrealism with out emotions! Desires! This
is the whole structure of surrealism! Buddhism calls for a complete lack of
that structure. They aren't just incompatable, but enemies!!!
5. Nothing is hidden in surrealism like it is in Taoism. In Surrealism your
unconcious blocks it out, but it isn't hiding --- you are denying it.
Children do not have these blocking out tools, and that is why children are
more in touch with Surrealism. Taoism is about a "way" and about letting the
"way" take you where it does. Surrealism is about making your way, fuck
nature, finding your way by the desires and emotions you have --- "you"
have, not nature's --- why do you think the Marquis de Sade was such an
inspiration to the Surrealists?
---BJF
x-ister
"Brandon J. Freels" wrote:
> fuck
> nature,
watch it bubba, yer nature too...
> --- why do you think the Marquis de Sade was such an
> inspiration to the Surrealists?
>
> CUZ HE LIKED TO FUCK!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!.................HARD!!!!!!!!!!!
(And he wrote books that were great to jack off to)
--
Reply (sans hyphen) to the x-i...@earthlink.net
"Lying on stained wretched sheets
with a bleeding virgin.
We could plan a murder,
or start a religion...
No eternal reward will forgive us now
for wasting the dawn..."
-JIM MORRISON-
x-ister
to jump into the fray.
Nikolaus Maack wrote:
> < BIG SNIP>
>
> Furthermore, the idea of comparing surrealism to politics depresses the
> hell out of me. "Don't we all know what surrealism is?" Brandon seems to
> ask. "We're all the same, in this group. We all believe in the same
> thing. We are a cohesive whole! We are a MOVEMENT!"
>
> God, I hope not. I hope we are all approaching surrealism in our own
> unique way. Let's keep a little anarchy in the stew, shall we?
Exactly; We can't ALL agree on EVERYTHING- again I say: When everyone thinks
the same, no one really thinks at all.
>
>
> Brandon then goes on to say that so many people in here seem eager to talk
> about how Taoism and Buddhism overlap with Surrealism. Uh, I think I'm
> the only person who has been saying this. Me. I'm the one. I am an
> entire group. I had no idea.
Oh, well I've been lumped in there for a passing remark on a minor similarity
between the two also...
>
>
> Unfortunately, most religions state their opinion of what matters as fact.
... also unfortunately, it relies on dogma and doesn't like change, and thus
stagnates, along with it's propagators and followers who try to keep the
vision of the religion's originators pure from any other influence, and they
use tactics like: "You're no christian because: (and then they put their own
little take on christianity here)" and "Christ said: ( and they put their
favorite quote here to back up their statements) and we should follow his
word to the letter!" Conversely, we hear in this group: "You're no surrealist
because- (insert favorite OPINION here)" and "Breton said: (insert fav Breton
quote here)". I mean, come on guys, you're going to tell me that you agree
with EVERYTHING Andre Breton said, and that he was right on EVERY account
about surrealism? Sure, he essentially defined the word, but come on! Times
change, people change, society changes, and so does the definition of
surrealism. I respect the surrealism of the past, and the wisdom of ALL of the
surrealists, and many who aren't surrealists. BUT- things that I can't
reconcile, or agree with, I don't flatly dismiss, but say something along the
lines of this to myself: What's true for me today might not be true for me
tomorrow, so keep an open mind. And there's nothing to fear in that, because I
have faith in myself, not religion, not dogma, not the discoveries/words of
past thinkers, and I also have faith that surrealism will go on with or
without me. Relying strongly on the surrealism of the past, and holding it up
as a mirror to all that we do in this group, seems to me a crutch, and a
shortcut to thinking on our own. I've heard it said that a good painter
(pupil) at some point should eclipse their master, and to me that means
forging into new territory, and building on what has been learned, not holding
the master's paintings up as a template (or any master's painting for that
matter), or using the master's style as a version of what is the true way to
paint one's painting. To go a little further; imitation is the sincerest form
of flattery, but- it's not doing or trying anything new. Sure, Dali is a bit
of a hero to me, but I'm not going to paint strictly in his style (or any
painter's exact style for that matter), that would be silly, and would deny me
my own self expression. This, I believe, goes for thinking, and surrealism as
a whole also.
>
> The enemy is not religion or surrealism but dogma, attempts at defining
> phisilophies, and maintaining some kind of order. Fuck order. Fuck
> dogma. Fuck definitions.
Well..... I agree with that Nik, but let me add this: There is a flow to
chaotic masses, such as groups of humans, and you can't really lay down laws
(so to speak) for something like this. The best that you can do is go along
with it and try to influence the mass with whatever you've got and hope for
the best, if that's your intention. The more you try to pin something like
surrealism down to precise detail and exacting definitions, the more it will
try to squirm out from under your microscope..... Kinda like life....
>
>
> I want no purity in my life.
I would like purity, but I know better... Life as it is, is too messy for
purity. It just doesn't work, as this group, the original surrealists, and for
that matter, the catholic church have clearly demonstrated...
> Keeping surrealism -- or any philosophy --
> pure is a fool's task. Brandon is that fool.
I only have a few problems with Brandon (and Barrett). I consider you guys
intelligent, knowledgeable, and I respect your opinion except for this: You
think you know exactly what surrealism is and what a surrealist is, and on
many points you're right in my view, but there seems to be a dogma to follow,
and even tho you don't really know anyone in this group personally, you're
content to dismiss all who disagree with you as non-surrealists. Also, why
can't you try cajoling or enticing someone into seeing your point of view,
instead of hounding, name calling, or putting people down for their views
(Brandon- and don't make me go to DejaNews to get the proof either). Or better
yet, prove your beliefs by example instead. All that were arguing about is
rhetoric anyway, people will (hopefully) make up their own minds regardless of
what we say.
I asked this question once a long time ago and (rightly so) never got a
reply, so I'll ask again. What ARE the defining terms of being a surrealist?
Who would be so bold to presume to know what's best for all involved?
--
Reply (sans hyphen) to the x-i...@earthlink.net
"If you thought that you were making your way,
to where the puzzles and pagans lay,
I put it together,
it's a strange invitation..."
-BECK HANSEN-
x-ister
"Brandon J. Freels" wrote:
> 1. Who supports your mix-n-mash theory?
*ahem*
> I don't see anyone.
That's because you walk around with blinders on half the time.
> Have you read
> recent post by Dale Houstman? I wonder what Mr. Barrett can say about your
> theories?
I'm sure we'll find out soon enough.... And in detail...
> I would bet they are more on my side than yours.
Yes, but why does that make you right?
>
>
> 2. Go tap dancing with Talysman! Before you there have been others
> (Talysman), and we fly-swatted them away. Shoo! Go!
No one has gone anywhere brandon... It's pretty amazing how short and selective
your memory is... Would that have anything to do with your desire to inflate
your ego to magnificent proportions because you don't get laid enough?
If I remember correctly, YOU were the one to get swatted, and not even because
of anything to do with surrealism, just your annoyance factor.
>
>
> 3. I nevered said we could not move the movement along,
movement!?!?!?! alt.surrealism is now a movement!?! Shouldn't we have press
coverage or something like that? Tone down yer ego and get yer head out of your
ass brandon... It's just a newsgroup just like any of a few thousand others.
> but turning it into
> something completely different (like you are proposing)
no one is proposing that we turn alt.surrealism into something that it wasn't
meant to be.... You only THINK that they are...
> is something I am
> completely against. I will not let you
Contrary to your understanding of newsgroups, there is NOTHING you can really do
about it in the long run, except post Napoleonic screeds on how you say that you
wont let him.
> waltz into alt.surrealism spouting
> your Oriental junk in an attempt to convert everyone.
I don't think he's going to convert anyone brandon, nor do I think he wants to.
> I think many of the
> Surrealist here are much to intellegent to listen to you.
Well, see brandon, that's the thing. Most of the surrealists here seem to be
intelligent enough to listen and make their own decisions, and guess what else?
They can usually do it without resorting to 3rd grade tactics (i.e. name
calling). Nobody in here needs you as their spokesman, brandon.
> Your right I am a
> fool --- for responded to such moronic bullshit as yours!
Hey, now there's some intelligence coming through... Y'know, I'd bet you could
knock about half of your composition time off if you would just stick to the
facts and lay off the derrogatory remarks...
>
>
> 4. Fool! Desire is essential to the Surrealist cause. No desire, no
> surrealism --- you are surrealist in your "desire" to annoy me like a fly,
> and I am surrealist in my "desire" to respond to your bullshit! Damn it!
> There can be no irrational, or surrealism with out emotions! Desires! This
> is the whole structure of surrealism! Buddhism calls for a complete lack of
> that structure. They aren't just incompatable, but enemies!!!
Then kill a Buddist Brandon.... For Andre..... I dare you.... Better yet, kill
ten....
Can you honestly tell me that you follow up on EVERY desire that comes to you?
I'd bet that you don't....
--
Reply (sans hyphen) to the x-i...@earthlink.net
Clayton Francis
extremely silly and arise due firstly in a lack of understanding in buddhism
and taoism. May I ask what you know about taoism. I no little of buddhism, but
if I may be so bold I have a intimate knowledge with taoism based on first
principles not just a few books read. Sorry if I Sound like a dickhead, but if
you had any profound knowledge (which you cannot) of taoism you would not be
making any comparisons. don't take particular notions out of context and
present them as if they relate to taoism. Any person with deep understanding
of taoism with think you rather silly. If you beg to differ I would first like
to know your understanding of it, because to tell you the truth you appear to
have none. I not trying to be a arrogant: theres nothing wrong with religion
intergrating with surrealism if that what you want: but don't dare to say the
goals of surrealism and taoism and the methods in which this is achieved is
similar. STUPIDITY.
Brandon J. Freels
1. No one is right.
2. Everyone has gone everywhere. Everyone's memory is short and selective.
Ego inflation in process. Annoyance factor --- give me a percentage!
3. We are involved with the Surrealist movement if we like it or not. Should
I schedule a press conference, or continue with my "Napoleonic" posts?
4. I will call people 3rd grade names if my heart desires too! You're
approving Nik's Orientalism, but not my 3rd grade name calling --- something
wrong with this picture?
5. Derogatory remarks are my life.
6. I do not follow up on every desire, but would like to move towards the
possibility of doing so. I have not been unaffected by society, but now I
have to strip away that affectedness.
Dale Houstman
Actually, De Sade's books are not great to "jack off" to; way too windy.
As for Brandon's "fuck nature" This is semantic, but he means nature as versus
the artificial perhaps (Baudelaire), in which case he views the artifical as a
reaffirmation of man's position.
Or, he is full aware of our "nature-ness" and still chooses to say "fuck it".
Just as I am quite aware that I am a citizen of the United States and can yet say
"fuck the United States" and feel quite good about it.
After all, it is quite legitimate to despise your Mother...
Dale H
barrett john erickson
x-ister wrote:
> [...]
> I only have a few problems with Brandon (and Barrett). I consider you guys
> intelligent, knowledgeable, and I respect your opinion except for this: You
> think you know exactly what surrealism is and what a surrealist is, and on
> many points you're right in my view, but there seems to be a dogma to follow,
> and even tho you don't really know anyone in this group personally, you're
> content to dismiss all who disagree with you as non-surrealists. Also, why
> can't you try cajoling or enticing someone into seeing your point of view,
> instead of hounding, name calling, or putting people down for their views
> (Brandon- and don't make me go to DejaNews to get the proof either). Or better
> yet, prove your beliefs by example instead. All that were arguing about is
> rhetoric anyway, people will (hopefully) make up their own minds regardless of
> what we say.
For the record, i think you'd find it very difficult to locate any
name-calling in my posts. What you would find are very patient
attempts to clarify my position, and a growing frustration at those
who repeatedly misrepresent that position (as you have just done
again, intentionally or not).
Even then, I don't think you'll find me putting people down for their
views. Putting their _views_ down is something else.
I've also tried to make it clear that i'm not trying to judge anyone's
"standing as a surrealist" (as you put it in another post) since i
don't think this matters very much.
What does matter is the surrealist project, and to the extent that is
distorted, i feel compelled to attempt clarification. I do this, not
because i feel i have a superior "surrealist standing", but because i
feel i have a demonstrably clearer understanding.
And I'm more than willing to engage in a dialog with anyone who
questions that understanding as long as they are willing to accept the
current and historical reality of "surrealism" as the fundamental
arbiter of that dialog.
[There is, of course, no point in having a dialog about what is or is
not compatible with the surrealist project with someone who refuses
this condition.]
For a refresher example of my previous posts on this subject, I've
reposted one of my last responses to the original discourse (from Oct
10): "for xister: why surrealism is not a soft drink but dada is".
please understand:
1) i'm not trying to deny you opportunities, or narrow in any way
your explorations.
2) i'm not saying "surrealism" hasn't or can't evolve.
3) i'm not saying previous surrealists haven't fucked up.
4) i'm not saying current surrealists haven't fucked up.
5) i'm not saying Breton's writing is gospel (but he did helped form
the surrealist movement, was its major theorist during his lifetime,
and as such, his writing is relevant to _any_ discussion about what is
or is not compatible with "surrealism").
6) i'm not saying Breton wasn't, in my opinion, wrong on a number of
points.
7) i'm not even saying you can't be a surrealist if you hold "x"
opinion (although there would be some opinions which would certainly
make your distance from "surrealism" self-evident to surrealists --
and this is not meant as an accusation).
8) i _am_ saying, however, that you can't declare (unilaterally or in
groups) that "surrealism" is reconcilable with concepts which
surrealists have long rejected, and continue to reject as
anti-surrealist, unless you can also reconcile that position with the
overall surrealist project (as it exists) and effectively defend that
position against counter-argument within that context.
So far, the only thing i've heard is the repeated assertion that we
should all be able to define "surrealism" for ourselves -- a
non-argument which renders itself impotent within the larger context
of the surrealist community.
x-ister wrote:
> I asked this question once a long time ago and (rightly so) never got a
> reply, so I'll ask again. What ARE the defining terms of being a surrealist?
> Who would be so bold to presume to know what's best for all involved?
As my repost states, this hasn't been about the specifics of
definitions but the denial of the legitimacy of any attempt to
_re_define unilaterally.
As i said in a post in the "supernaturalism" thread:
> We should not be seeking _definition_ -- whether for "reality" or "surrealism"
> -- we should be seeking the most direct, total, integrated and spontaneous
> experience of it we can.
>
> Definition is a by-product of cognitive experience.
>
>
>
> I don't seem to be able to say this clearly enough: "surrealism" is not
> definable by individuals, it is a process (an exploration of the poetic
> dimensions of reality) with an existing context that is both personal and
> social. This process can only be subverted and mystified by claims that it
> lacks any reality beyond the individual or that it can be all things to all
> people (i.e., "we all define surrealism for ourselves").
>
> "Surrealism" is best served by individuals who recognize and seek to further
> its overall (collective) project -- even if they disagree on the ways to do so.
>
To deny the historical and current context of "surrealism" and claim
it is whatever you decide it is, is to limit your experience of it.
In a response to Andreas Shou i wrote:
> "and who are the surrealists?" i hear you asking.
>
> they are those who have understood and committed themselves 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. they are those who have 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.
>
>
> and they don't have to know anything about "literature and visual arts" to
> do so.
That's as close as i'll ever come to defining what a "surrealist" is.
I have offered my internalized understanding of the "surrealist
project" several times before:
to liberate and fully integrate the imagination into every day
living.
-- barrett
bar...@MagneticFields.org
http://www.MagneticFields.org/
"Everything tends to make us believe that there exists a certain point
of the mind
at which life and death, the real and the imagined, past and future,
the
communicable and the incommunicable, high and low, cease to be
perceived as
contradictions."
...André Breton
Ktzoah of Pic
> I have to say that a comparison of surrealism to buddhism and taoism is
> extremely silly and arise due firstly in a lack of understanding in buddhism
> and taoism.
One way in which surrealism, taoism, and buddhism are similar: hey, they
all end in "-ism". Okay, but another way they are all similar: each
is understood in various different ways by different groups of people,
some of whom think that their way is the only right one and go on
to make a political party out of it, crusading for recognition.
That seems to happen despite the fact that were people actually
living along the lines encouraged by these philosophies, they wouldn't
have need for such behaviour. Well, I'm pretty sure that's true
of taoism, at least, and buddhism... I know less about surrealism, which
is why I'm here.
Not that I'm saying that's what's happening here, certainly not with
your post at least. I was just saying they do have something in common.
> have none. I not trying to be a arrogant: theres nothing wrong with religion
> intergrating with surrealism if that what you want: but don't dare to say the
> goals of surrealism and taoism and the methods in which this is achieved is
> similar. STUPIDITY.
The methods and results (of taoism and surrealism) are clearly quite
different (although I'm unwilling to accept as likely that they have
no common elements). On the other hand, I think it's interesting to
consider the possibility that they seek to solve similar problems.
Don't try to tell me that taoism isn't out to 'solve problems', as
I mean that in its most general sense, and if it weren't, it wouldn't
have "-ism" on the end of its name.
Care to speculate on how the Tao in Taoism relates to the Surreal
in Surrealism?
-
> > Brandon then goes on to say that so many people in here seem eager to talk
> > about how Taoism and Buddhism overlap with Surrealism. Uh, I think I'm
> > the only person who has been saying this. Me. I'm the one. I am an
> > entire group. I had no idea.
Me too, I noticed it years ago. I'm with you brother! Let's go
start a Movement and invade some buddhist groups!
The big difference between Surrealism and Taoism is that Taoism has
been around for a few thousand years longer, and is a little more
coherent and easier to talk about without having three out of
five students of it disagree with anything you might say.
_