Meow Brigade.
Andrea Chen
>
Thanks for the info. I still find the conjunction of cats curious.
> Andrea Chen <fallin...@earthlink.net> wrote:
>
> > I sometimes wonder if later developments such as the meow brigade or
> > long lost fluffy are one of those strange coincidences tied to the
> > rather ugly invasion of rec.pet.cats
>
> Here is The 2-Belo's account of the origin of Meow, excerpted from his
> website <http://afk-mn.eist.co.jp>:
>
> "Meow meow Henrietta Pussycat meow meow meow The Presidents of
> the United States of America meow Kitty?"
> -- Matt Bruce, January, 1996
>
> The above quote was one that changed the face of Usenet, and
> began a dynasty. The largest flame war in Usenet history,
> involving hundreds of people from over 80 newsgroups, lasting
> over forty-five weeks. It was the Usenet equivalent of World
> War II. It was The Flamewar to End All Flamewars. It was the
> best of times.
>
> It all began innocently enough: a small group of students at
> Harvard University -- a band of future bloodsucking
> ambulance-chasing lawyers, medical specialists who phone in
> diagnoses from mobile phones on yachts, and caffeine-crazed
> computer programmers with way too much time on their
> hands -- began to use Usenet as a local dorm room bulletin
> board/gossip clique area. The newsgroup they chose,
> apparently at random from among the hundreds of empty
> Usenet joke-newsgroup wastelands: alt.fan.karl-malden.nose.
> No one knows the exact date of the group's creation, or the
> person responsible... but it no longer matters.
>
> This small group of posters set up their little regime in this
> forgotten newsgroup, posting daily schedules and post count
> summaries, talking about this class and that event and this
> and that and the other. Eventually, they tired of posting
> articles about their immensely boring daily lives, so they
> turned their attention to the computer network world
> around them. First they tried their hand at penny-ante
> crossposting, branching out to claim other empty
> newsgroups, such as alt.fan.ok-soda and alt.fan.pooh. This
> soon grew stale as well, as each poster moved into a new
> group only to find the same bored people he/she left
> behind.
>
> Apparently as a result of the Ivy-League uppity belief that all
> the world should be like them (and also as a result of trying
> to avoid studying for exams), one of the posters suggested
> that they "invade" a real, populated newsgroup and "rile up
> the stupid people". When Matt Bruce, another of the
> Harvard band, heard this, he wrote this response:
>
> "I suggest that we start either posting or crossposting
> to alt.tv.beavis-n-butthead. I also suggest that we use
> big words and perfect grammar, and refuse to write as the
> young ruffians in question speak.
>
> "This could lead to some interesting 'dialogue.' "
>
> This article was posted directly to alt.tv.beavis-n-butthead.
> The regulars at that group, wondering what the world was
> coming to, scoffed at the notion of a couple of stuck-up
> geeks from Harvard calling them "ruffians", and a few
> unpleasantries were exchanged.
>
> This crosspost-tossing attracted the attention of an unknown
> poster going by the name of Dontonio Wingfield. He/she discovered
> that one of the Harvard posters, Chuck Truesdell, placed "meow
> meow" (a reference to Henrietta Pussycat of Mr. Roger's
> Neighborhood fame) in many of his posts as a sort of calling
> card, as his initials spell "C.A.T.". Matt Bruce picked up on
> this practice for one post (the quote at the top of this page),
> and someone, for some reason, took that article out of afk-mn,
> crossposting it to a dozen newsgroups as a troll against the
> "Nosers" (as the Harvard students called themselves). Dontonio
> Wingfield either instigated this troll, or was the first to reply
> to it:
>
> "What the hell is this shite? Would you mind
> keeping it the hell out of HERE?"
>
> The Dontonio Wingfield persona then, of course, vanished.
>
> The posters in the targeted groups, noting the "meow meow"
> elements, began to retaliate against the supposed original
> crossposter, Matt Bruce. These posters entered the 'Nose
> and found it full of other Harvard students like Matt, and the
> counter-invaders flamed and spewed
>
> "meow"
>
> with vigor.
>
> In time, flames containing the word "meow" would start popping
> up all over the place, aimed mostly at areas where the
> high-class uppity Ivy-League snots were known to
> congregate, such as alt.college.college-bowl. Other flames
> targeted snobbish college kids who regularly huffed their
> freckled noses in newsgroups such as alt.music.nin. Some of
> the more daring souls decided to forge articles in Bruce's
> name, spreading the "meow" attacks to more and more
> groups, including afk-mn, to add to the onslaught against him
> and his "intellectually elite" cohorts.
>
> When the real Matt Bruce caught wind of the uproar, he and
> the other Harvard students first tried to write his attack on
> atbnb as a "joke". When no one bought his story, he
> attempted more forcefully to get the attackers to stop,
> which only sounded like more condescending talk:
>
> "Please stop. Cease and desist.
> You are only making yourselves look silly."
>
> When this only fanned the flames further, he threatened to
> cancel all articles containing the word "meow", and to
> netcop all the "meow" article forgers. This "Cancellation
> Notice", posted about a month and a half after the first
> "meow" troll, was apparently the proverbial last straw. A
> person crossposting into 12 newsgroups, then claiming it a
> "joke", when he obviously had no sense of humor? This pissed
> off the Usenet Performance Artists to no end. it was time to
> teach Matt Bruce -- and the rest of his gang of snots --
> a lesson.
>
> Suddenly, afk-mn, alt.college.college-bowl, and scores of
> other groups were flooded to the gills and beyond with
> hundreds upon hundreds of huge meow articles from all
> corners of Usenet. Cascades, ASCII cats, hundred-line "meow"
> hello-world-type flood posts, and more were posted,
> reposted, munged, pureed, and regurgitated all over the
> servers of the world. The Harvard kids' protests were quickly
> lost in the feline tidal wave. Every post by a Harvard snot
> would result in fifty cascade follow-ups.
> alt.college.college-bowl, a known regular haunt of Matt
> Bruce, was reduced to a smoldering crater, so inundated
> with meows that its regulars could no longer use it. After a
> couple of weeks of this, Usenet in general looked like
> Chernobyl, or the Marina district of San Francisco after the
> 1989 earthquake, or downtown Nagasaki the day after the fall
> of the Fat Man.
>
> A number of the attackers, calling themselves the "MEOW
> MEOW ARMY", were bent on taking over afk-mn and
> occupying it as their own. It soon was -- the Harvard
> students, seeing a fire raging out of control in their cyber
> Dunster House, were compelled to escape to a local,
> non-propagated newsgroup on a Harvard server. The meow
> hurricane, however,simply refused to die:
> alt.college.college-bowl continued to be attacked until
> almost a year after Matt Bruce's now infamous post, and the
> Meowers now in afk-mn began to redecorate their new home
> (with the legendary Fluffy, formerly Matt Bruce's pet,
> claiming ownership of all of Usenet), merging with the verbal
> abuse powerhouse known as the Mighty Alt Dot FlameTM.
>
> Today, afk-mn remains as a sort of Usenet posting relay hub.
> The first- and second-generation Meowers also became
> alt.flame regulars. alt.alien.vampire.flonk.flonk.flonk,
> alt.non.sequitur, and alt.stupidity, long bases of Meow
> action, also traded regulars with the Nose. These groups
> fused together to form what is now known as the Empire of
> Meow. This empire is still growing as you read this, as in 1998
> the groups alt.flame.niggers and demon.local were recently
> annexed much in the same fashion as the 'Nose. Clealy, sir,
> the Empire of Meow's feline vocalizations will be heard
> forever more throughout Usenet history.
>
> Meow.
>
> --
> ---------------------------------------------------------------->
> |\__/,| (`\ M E D I C A L C A T A S T R O P H E
> meow. _.|o o |_ ) ) The 26th Smeeter Vote for Stepp!
> -------(((-mr(((------------------------------------------------>
barrett john erickson
Andrea Chen wrote:
>
> Medical Catastrophe wrote:
> >
sorry, "Andrea", i don't have the patience to read all this drivel about burning
cats. can you just give me a brief summary of what part of it you think is relevant
to "surrealism"?
-- 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
Johnny Gunn
barrett john erickson wrote:
> Andrea Chen wrote:
> >
> > Medical Catastrophe wrote:
> > >
>
> sorry, "Andrea", i don't have the patience to read all this drivel about burning
> cats. can you just give me a brief summary of what part of it you think is relevant
> to "surrealism"?
the part about matchmaking and controlling the world without ever having to touch
anything or anybody in it and a felixed sense of humor and a sink full of dirty dishes
and a click in the dark and a blooming yellow chrysanthemum three times the size of the
universe
Andrea Chen
>
> Andrea Chen wrote:
> >
> > Medical Catastrophe wrote:
> > >
>
> sorry, "Andrea", i don't have the patience to read all this drivel about burning
> cats. can you just give me a brief summary of what part of it you think is relevant
> to "surrealism"?
If indeed surrealism is about movement(s) (and I should remark
surrealism as an academic study is "surrealist" (pop definition) in
itself) then:
How movements inflame and spread through this medium (in some ways a
mirror of society) *is* relevant.
>
> "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
I'm surprised you still keep this quote. As anyone with some education
can tell you it's a restatement of things said thousands of years ago in
Taoism. Yet when Talysman, Nik and others argued the relevance of such
things as a drunken dragon on a cloud to surrealism and were then
attacked; not once did you speak up in their defence because those doing
the attacking were your allies (the messager is the message.) Similarly
this statement implies the point beyond truth and lies; another issue
raised by the unacceptable, the nonsurrealists; the "narcissists" and
yet you were once again silent.
This again confirms a neu neutopian hypothesis; those who are timid;
those who are comformists seek a *symbol* of rebellion (a mirror image)
which they then distort in their own image.
How else do we explain Dale's complete embracement of Stefan's
(satirical but accurate) portrayal of the authoritarian, obedient
stance?
In closing I can explain nothing about surrealism to you; because it's
a concept you can't understand. You think by learning some names and
looking at some pictures you can attain this state you so desperately
desire; but the Tao laughs at yourself mockery as your attempt at Yin
turns into the most rigid Yang.
You would corrupt surrealism and make it meaningless, but (terrible
mockery of what's wrong and right) because it retains market appeal;
people will take it; reinvent it and keep it alive while you stomp your
feet and say "no no no!" they will be flipping each other's minds
tossing ymmy pies in their faces while you open your authoriative book
on what is (read who is) and isn't surrealist; pull from it an image and
hold in your hand a lump of coal.
Meanwhile Lao Tzu dances on a cloud of orgone which everyone takes to
be a flying saucer...
Except the clown taking tickets at the circus who knows it's a Zeppelin
with a picture of Ben Franklin on it and (kindly) says to you: "You have
a rock, do you have a feather?"
And you angrily throw the coal at him; it unites it's flaming and they
warm their hands and make jumping frogs from the smoke; you flee to your
room and open your book, put on your austere professor jammies and say
"this is surrealism, I don't care what those bad children say. Daddy
told me it has nothing to do with pink elephants riding pogo sticks and
daddy loves me more anyway, someday he'll give me a full professorship
and if anyone says something wrong about surrealism I'll flunk them and
they'll turnm into dishwashers dreaming of plutonium" And with this
happy thought you go to sleep. And you don't even remember the aliens
who visit you during the night because that isn't surrealistic, it isn't
in the book that daddy gave you.
NO CARRIER
barrett john erickson
Andrea Chen wrote:
>
> barrett john erickson wrote:
> >
> > Andrea Chen wrote:
> > >
> > > Medical Catastrophe wrote:
> > > >
> >
> > sorry, "Andrea", i don't have the patience to read all this drivel about burning
> > cats. can you just give me a brief summary of what part of it you think is relevant
> > to "surrealism"?
>
> If indeed surrealism is about movement(s) (and I should remark
> surrealism as an academic study is "surrealist" (pop definition) in
> itself) then:
>
> How movements inflame and spread through this medium (in some ways a
> mirror of society) *is* relevant.
> [...]
Ahhhh! OK.
I can see now -- from this, and your later contortions -- that it _was_ just your
conceptual dyslexia rattling around in the emptiness of "neu" again.
I suppose it was indelicate of me to call attention to it.
-- barrett
bar...@MagneticFields.org
http://www.MagneticFields.org/
"Everything tends to make us believe that there exists a certain point of the mind at
Bill Cleere
>
> Heraclitus: "The path up and the path down are one and the same" (Fr. 60)
>
> I also see a connection between Breton's statement and Hegel's thesis,
> antithesis, and synthesis concept.
Hegel never used those terms. They were invented by the
Marxists to criticize Hegel. Hegel specifically rejected
the notion that his philosophy of history could be
reduced to this banal triune construct.
-- Bill Cleere
Status: res. LoyolaNet. Expect.destin. Fumat pro Soc.
Andrea Chen
>
> > I'm surprised you still keep this quote. As anyone with some education
> >can tell you it's a restatement of things said thousands of years ago in
> >Taoism.
>
>
Actually it's the statement of a direct experience (real or imagined,
emotional and intellectual.) Taoism is a sophisticated exploration of
this merging into opposites and not (as you dismissed it) simply "nature
worship."
As for your comment on Hegel, the terms thesis, anti thesis and
synthesis are Marx's, he claimed to find them in Hegal (do you know how
Marx claimed to turn Hegel on his head? Can you explain how Mao turned
Marx on HIS head.)
Incidently the Marxian terms imply progress and evolution through
conflict; not a merging of mental states into the chaos. Marx was very
much opposed to such things and would have dismissed surrealism as a
pretty toy of the capitalist upper classes designed to distract from the
*real* issues.
Andrea Chen
>
> Bill Cleere wrote
> >Hegel never used those terms. They were invented by the
> >Marxists to criticize Hegel. Hegel specifically rejected
> >the notion that his philosophy of history could be
> >reduced to this banal triune construct.
>
> Then here we have the connection between Surrealism and Marxism. Thank you
> Bill.
Brandon is really surreal. It's like he's read the Readers Digest
World History of Philosophy (condensed version.) I think he must be a
college freshman, he has no sense of the context; no sense of history
(this has come up before with Marx, the unconscious and almost every
sibject he dares pontificate on). To associate Marx with a fairly
frequent "mystical" state of mind (also found in the Gospel of Thomas,
perhaps Doctress Glass would care to provide more?) does indeed blur the
edges of reality creating this Usenet effect were one can't distinguish
anything from troll with the very best ones offered in full sincerity so
the greatest ansurdity we can create is simply to exho and ask our
question for today:
What is the relation of surrealism and Santa Claus?
Or more seriously Brandon how do you resolve Breton's statement with
your insistence on truth (and the denial that subjective (apparently
valid) conceptions differ)?
You do this doublethink this flipping from one reality to another; but
there is no "conscious" sense of it; thus proving the validity of the
unconsciousness and the neu neu pragmatic examination of it through
objective records left on the net and detailed commentary (meta notes)
on such events along with their classification into general types and
predictable patterns.
(thus serving humanity by exposing rhetoric and hypocrisy for over 5
years; a completely reliable product based on alien (the human in the
mirror) technology. Buy now before supplies multiply into infinity!)
Brandon J. Freels
Andrea Chen wrote
>> "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
>
>
>can tell you it's a restatement of things said thousands of years ago in
>Taoism.
Actually its a restatement of the Greek philosopher Heraclitus.
---BJF
Brandon J. Freels
Brandon J. Freels
Brandon J. Freels
that Taoism calls for the interplay of the two yin and yang while Surrealism
calls for the unity of dream and reality, etc. Unity versus interplay.
---BJF
Brandon J. Freels
Andrea Chen wrote
> Actually it's the statement of a direct experience (real or imagined,
>emotional and intellectual.) Taoism is a sophisticated exploration of
>this merging into opposites and not (as you dismissed it) simply "nature
>worship."
Brandon:
Show me a Taoist text that supports your statements.
Andrea Chen
This would be the primal chaos which begat the 2 which begat the 3
which begat the 10,000 things. 2 states is the smallest possible to
express difference.
Your assumption is that reality is static which was reflected in your
statements on the unconscious.
It's almost Christmas, I'm feeling generous so I will respond in detail
to your statements.
You asked if the unconscious was a myth. If you mean a story (which
may be true) which helps us understand reality the answer is yes. If
you mean does it exist; the answer is also yes.
1) Functions we can't examine which give us a limited array of "colors"
along with other biological functions which make certain grammars
"natural" and other possible grammars (eg. mathematics) less so and some
impossible. This structure is unconscious; it shapes our thoughts.
It's existence isn't an adequete answer to your question; but it
stresses something very important; that is function and it's
inseaparably nature from content (the medium is the message.) This
differs from the blank slate of extreme behhavioralism (such as that
advocated by orthodox communists) which argued the inner states are
irrelevant.
2) Electrodes inserted in the brain can create "memories" with a sensory
detail ordinarily impossible. There are things down there that we only
partially access if at all. This by itself is proof of an
"unconscious."
3) There is editing. If you are angry at someone you tend to recall the
bad things they did and even the good things become suspect. It's the
opposite if you're in love.
4) There are a number of documented cases of repression (especially of
very stressful events); there is also a rewriting (eg. Reagon was
probably sincere when he recalled liberating a concentration camp.) The
degree and nature of these things is debatable; but one can get an idea
of what's going on by examining the use of hypnosis to recall such
things as incest. Those who deny the validity of this often claim that
there is no such thing as repression. Therefore the "memories" are
created which proves that the unconscious is capable of acting beyond
our conscious control. If one believes that the repression is real;
then the unconscious is blocking away stored things.
NOW TO THE NEXT STEP
(the one you claimed was side stepping)
What is the unconscious?
To this there are many answers.
At the time of the surrealists; the one most availible was Freuds, but
Jung and Adler had already made significant alterations.
You defined the unconscious as a storehouse of repressed memories.
This is is where it became clear you didn't understand.
Repressed memories are not stored, they act!!!
I will repeat this several times.
Lets look at the Freudian mind.
We start with the ID. Me me me! It doesn't separate itself from the
world, it desires pleasure, a ploymorpheous sexuality Eros is the thing
that powers the mind (according to Freud) , the ID is all eros it's
pure mental power (desire).
Now enter reality, the environment; the first manifestation of the
superego. Later this will develop into a part of the self; but for now
lets keep it external.
Mommy doesn't feed baby when he cries; so (because he dislikes pain) he
represses hunger. But the hunger isn't gone; perhaps it manifests
itself as a nervous tic.
Repressed memories (more accurately referred to as repression) aren't
stored they act.
Later baby is internalizing the rules. According to Freud if he's a
boy he wants mommy; he fears daddy. This energy doesn't go away
(according to Freud); it loops back, it reverses itself; the boy rejects
the world of girls; tries to emulate daddy and become like him.
This energy loops fed by the pure eros of ID and controlled by superego
(now strongly internalized) build into more complex patterns. They do
in fact create who we are and controlling, balancing and directing these
forces is the task of ego. These 3 states are largely unconcious though
one can sometimes hear their voice.
Ego is the one which can examine the calls of the self, study the
manifestations and (according to Freud) release destructive energies and
in theory channel them into more productive behaviors.
If you read Freud closely you will notice he admits to failure, he
mentions that his therapy doesn't produce the dream human; but merely
one that can cope; that in fact it makes people flatter.
Now look to Freuds ethical and philosophical bias. He believed in
controls (and only wished to end the really nasty energy loops called
neurosis, circles without purpose, obsessive.)
Then look at the surrealists. They are among the first in a line of
thinkers (including Reich (orgone theory is relevant though it's decades
down the road it's a symbol of the man) on to people like Brown and
Marcuse (who I mentioned earlier)). These people don't want to
control the energies and fit them within a socially approved context.
At their most radical; they want to smash the superego and let the ID
go free. Hurray with ploymorpheus sexuality. Life as a continual
orgy. This is the kind of thought simmering in the twenties and one of
the reasons Freud was so radical.
Now we come to the question. Is the Freudian unconscious a myth (in
the sense of being wrong)? Yes at least to a degree. As a simple
example the Freudian model (remember the steam engine in my earlier
posts) if I express an emotion (lets say anger) enough then the tension
is gone. In point of fact there are observed cases where this
reinforces the behavior (along the lines of behavioralism).
This whole thing is exceedingly complex. In order to begin approaching
it you need to begin define specifics.
Do you start to understand why I said it was impossible to answer "Is
the unconscious a 20th century myth" when you defined it in 19th century
terms?
You really need to understand this stuff if you're going to understand
surrealism and it's relationship to a number of other 20th century
movements and philosophies.
Robert Scott Martin
Andrea Chen <fallin...@earthlink.net> wrote:
>sibject he dares pontificate on). To associate Marx with a fairly
>frequent "mystical" state of mind (also found in the Gospel of Thomas,
>perhaps Doctress Glass would care to provide more?) does indeed blur the
>edges of reality creating this Usenet effect were one can't distinguish
>anything from troll with the very best ones offered in full sincerity so
>the greatest ansurdity we can create is simply to exho and ask our
>question for today:
Those intrigued could stand to read Walter Benjamin, particularly on the
relationship between the Revolution and the Messiah.
The caliban to this ariel is of course the work of the sex pistols.
Revolution isn't about stake meetings and pamphlets falling from the sky.
It's about free love (erotics not politics!) and bread falling from the
sky. No future now!
Herr Marcuse, the Last Hegelian, preached something similar as well, and
if Marx was the prophet and Mao was the sword, Marcuse was the interpreter
bay-bee.
Did Breton read Marcuse? Unlikely except as a ghost reading backwards
(the Angel of History walks backwards), because Marcuse was the darling of
68. However, Andre almost certainly looked at Korenyi's gloss on Hegel --
all them parisian cats did after George B (no not Bush, although the
nihilistic analogy is fecund) showed them the way.
Is it all in Korenyi, master and servant? I think so, but then my love of
incan slave girls and other Edwardian fixations reveals my initiation into
the upstairs/downstairs mind in which Breton & fils were so rooted.
And who is that "fils," the hidden imam, the rightful successor to the
manifestos, the Grand Master of the Order (no, not Robert Matta or even
Satie with his hats)? Only you can tell me that.
> What is the relation of surrealism and Santa Claus?
Naughty Andrea, Santa Claus is a dada figure, not surrealist at all. All
that fur, the shamanistic raiment of the fetish? No surrealist worth his
salts would be caught dead without his necktie (check the graveside
records! Dig them up!).
> (thus serving humanity by exposing rhetoric and hypocrisy for over 5
>years; a completely reliable product based on alien (the human in the
>mirror) technology. Buy now before supplies multiply into infinity!)
Say more about the human in the mirror. You know, they tell me all the
Greys are left-handed, and they live backwards through history. Their
sorrow, of course, is that they grow smaller as they multiply, whereas
here (to cross again is to cross twice, ja?) it's inverse.
this thread ends
Nikolaus Maack
Andrea Chen wrote
>> Actually it's the statement of a direct experience (real or imagined,
>>emotional and intellectual.) Taoism is a sophisticated exploration of
>>this merging into opposites and not (as you dismissed it) simply "nature
>>worship."
"Brandon J. Freels" (Fre...@ethergate.com) writes:
> Show me a Taoist text that supports your statements.
This is actually such a basic principle of Taoism, I'm surprised you're
ignorant of it. Right in the Tao Teh Ching it talks about it for chapters
and chapters. I mean, the entire goddamn book says this. The reason one
strives for the centre, for the Tao, for stability, is because of the ups
and downs, the opposites, will come and go. They cancel each other out
over and over again. (This is but one example of how nothing and
everything are the same thing. They both perish to be replaced by a
balance.)
I'll quote text at you later. My mother is waiting for the computer so
she can play yet another ten games of solitaire. Yes, I'm visiting mom
and dad for Xmas. But fortunately for you, I carry a pocket-sized version
of the Tao Teh Ching in my winter coat.
Nik
--
"Smoking is like eating an ice cream cone and stuffing half of it down
the throats of the people who walk by you."
--Fred Maack
barrett john erickson
"Andrea Chen" wrote:
>
> You asked if the unconscious was a myth. If you mean a story (which
> may be true) which helps us understand reality the answer is yes. If
> you mean does it exist; the answer is also yes.
>
> [...]
the problem with the lengthy dissertation that follows is that, contrary to its
claim, it doesn't "prove" (or even make a strong argument for) the existence of the
"unconscious". it merely defines and asserts certain behavior and characteristics of
the human processes as belonging to the "unconscious".
this is unnecessary (and much better "models" now exist).
> Repressed memories are not stored, they act!!!
> [...]
all that follows is anthropomorphism run amuck -- mistaking the metaphor for the
reality.
> Do you start to understand why I said it was impossible to answer "Is
> the unconscious a 20th century myth" when you defined it in 19th century
> terms?
yes. you've provided a wonderful example of someone applying an early 20th century
metaphor to a 19th century cognitive model as viewed through a prism.
>
> You really need to understand this stuff if you're going to understand
> surrealism and it's relationship to a number of other 20th century
> movements and philosophies.
you really need a more current understanding of cognition before you're going to
understand my sig file.
-- barrett
bar...@MagneticFields.org
http://www.MagneticFields.org/
"Everything tends to make us believe that there exists a certain point of the mind at
Stefan Kapusniak
They are the ying to our yang.
In the plenum of their existence they have achieved greater
balance and unity (and thus Qwan) amongst the aspects and
sub-aspects of their existence than we, yet inevitably in
so doing the Cosmos as a whole has become de-stabilised. This
is because the overall unity (and Qwan) of our plenum no longer
balances with theirs.
The Cosmos as a whole moves inevitably towards balance between
our two plenums, as it always has throughout the many cycles
of its existence. In order to prevent their achievements
being brought low in order to right this balance, they must
send messengers and agents to our plenum as both counsellors
and goads, tasked with increasing balance, unity, and Qwan
among the aspects of our existence.
They do this so that it may level upwards to theirs and thus
right the balance of the Cosmos.
-- Kapusniak, Stefan m
barrett john erickson
"Brandon J. Freels" wrote:
>
> Andrea Chen wrote
> > Actually it's the statement of a direct experience (real or imagined,
> >emotional and intellectual.) Taoism is a sophisticated exploration of
> >this merging into opposites and not (as you dismissed it) simply "nature
> >worship."
>
> Brandon:
> Show me a Taoist text that supports your statements.
i think the important point here, Brandon, is that "Andrea" concedes that Breton's
statement on that "certain point of the mind" relates to a matter of direct
experience and need not indicate any connection with Tao, etc.
[this is in my sig file because when i first read it there was an immediate resonance
with _my_ direct experience.]
when such tangents are discovered by explorers, the congruencies are probed for any
insights into the larger project they may provide, for as long as they provide them.
then the larger project is resumed. such has always been the case among surrealists.
however, the recurrence and defense of prolonged diversion from the _surrealist
project_ that we've seen here into areas of belief and mysticism (including, but not
limited to religion) is a clear indication of the degree to which these wanderer's
projects diverge from "surrealism".
Bill Cleere
You *are* a professor! Only a real professor could talk
like that! I knew it! A Professor of Surrealism!
That was lovely, Brandon. Made me feel thirty years
younger, only back then I would want to kick in a wall
when a professor made a comment like that. Now I just
laugh.
There are two ways to encounter these things, folks.
We can take a book and go off with the author on a
journey, wherever he might lead us, and experience
his perspective and insight and, in the case of Hegel,
genius. It's hard work (in the case of Hegel it can
be the work of Sisyphus.)
Or we can grab a few Post-it notes out of the trash bin
of "Intellectual History" and stick 'em on stuff at
random, to avoid having to think.
Becoming good at the latter is what it means to be a
Professor.
Robert Scott Martin
Stefan Kapusniak <stefan...@zetnet.co.uk> wrote:
> The Cosmos as a whole moves inevitably towards balance between
> our two plenums, as it always has throughout the many cycles
> of its existence. In order to prevent their achievements
> being brought low in order to right this balance, they must
> send messengers and agents to our plenum as both counsellors
> and goads, tasked with increasing balance, unity, and Qwan
> among the aspects of our existence.
And also, "some are rising, some are falling."
I am surprised no-one has yet sexed this metaphor. Fort, da, eh?
Barrett:
Is surrealism the kingdom of yes or no?
barrett john erickson
Robert Scott Martin wrote:
> Barrett:
>
> Is surrealism the kingdom of yes or no?
"surrealism" is no kingdom. it is a quest.
Stefan Kapusniak
In alt.pouting.sandwich, gl...@panix.com (Robert Scott Martin) wrote:
>I am surprised no-one has yet sexed this metaphor. Fort, da, eh?
The metaphor, is of course, quite properly hermaphrodite. Of
the additional lower tongue variety, rather than the boredom
of mere superflous penii.
I insist upon this matter most strongly, _particularly_ the
tongue. This has obvious implications for divining the manner
of my latent homosexual tendencies.
-- Kapusniak, Stefan m
Stefan Kapusniak
> I insist upon this matter most strongly, _particularly_ the
> tongue. This has obvious implications for divining the manner
> of my latent homosexual tendencies.
...and also my latent transexual tendencies.
Oh dear, but this isn't a therapy group is it...sorry!
-- Kapusniak, Stefan m
Perceptor
> Is surrealism the kingdom of yes or no?
Speaking only of my self, I came here and saw what a kingdom of "or"
might look like
in the midst of a palace revolt amongst the mandarins about just how
far the peasantry can go in asserting independence and still be
considered patriots.
Stefan Kapusniak
>barrett john erickson wrote:
> How else do we explain Dale's complete embracement of Stefan's
>(satirical but accurate) portrayal of the authoritarian, obedient
>stance?
No.
At least I would be reluctant with attaching the label
'a picture of authoritarianism' to my silly little parody.
It was written as a reductio ad absurdum of how someone
who saw all good/moral/valid action as necessarily being
created with the aim of moving toward a defined goal,
would react to someone who saw goals as things that you
discover in the process of action. Plus a few added
grace notes, based on your story of returning to
alt.society.neutopia and finding everybody describing
you as boring but mentioning you every other word.
More a sort of hyper-'I'm more grown-up and responsible
because I've convinced myself I know the results of what
I'm doing, why are you pretending you don't know what
you're doing?' attitude.
I do admit that I found the moral position I read into
Dale's response to my post where he seemed to say it was
more moral to jolt someone out of accustomed patterns
of thought in order to move them to some other pattern
of thought which you had previously devised, rather than
simply just jolting them, _seriously_ alien.
There are of course moral minefields which every way you
look at _that_ thorny subject, but I would definitely
assign it the other way around.
On the question of authoritarianism I don't think I
have a good model of that way of seeing that the moment.
I have a model of Nazism which I'm fairly happy with,
but the degree into which that shades into less virulent
forms of fascism and that into authoritarianism is
something I'm not at all convinced about.
-- Kapusniak, Stefan m
Brandon J. Freels
Brandon J. Freels
>contrary to its claim, it doesn't "prove" (or even make a strong >argument
for) the existence of the "unconscious". it merely >defines and asserts
certain behavior and characteristics of the >human processes as belonging to
the "unconscious".
Brandon:
Yes, Chen. What makes the "20th century" theories of the unconscious more
viable than the "19th century" theories if neither can be proven?
xepera
when they catch you
they will shove ice pick
up your eye sockets
shut up
Millie Merced
xepera wrote:
Merry Christmas, asshole
Millie Merced
Bill Cleere wrote:
Beside, isn't Heralclits the old guy that took baths in the same water twice?
barrett john erickson
Stefan Kapusniak wrote:
>
> In alt.syntax.tactical, Andrea Chen <fallin...@earthlink.net> wrote:
> >barrett john erickson wrote:
>
> > How else do we explain Dale's complete embracement of Stefan's
> >(satirical but accurate) portrayal of the authoritarian, obedient
> >stance?
please be a bit more careful with your snips. i didn't write the above comment (you
apparently cut the portion of my text that "Andrea" was replying to), and i see no
reason for my name to have appeared in your follow-up at all.
[note: i don't mean to imply you did this deliberately, just request a bit more care
and awareness when it comes to attribution of comments.]
Stefan Kapusniak
In alt.syntax.tactical, barrett john erickson <bar...@skypoint.com> wrote:
>please be a bit more careful with your snips. i didn't write the above
>comment (you apparently cut the portion of my text that "Andrea" was
>replying to), and i see no reason for my name to have appeared in your
>follow-up at all.
Sorry, my apologies.
-- Kapusniak, Stefan m
Perceptor
> strives for the centre, for the Tao, for stability, is because of the ups
> and downs, the opposites, will come and go. They cancel each other out
> over and over again. (This is but one example of how nothing and
> everything are the same thing. They both perish to be replaced by a
> balance.)
>
Hello,
I am not sure if Brandon Or Nik is responsible for the above Quote or if I am
even interpreting it in the sprit they intended.
I just wanted to add a personal perception
of my interpretation of balance in this context.
" the opposites, will come and go. They cancel each other out
over and over again. "
Far from canceling each other out they give life to each other for one can not
exist with out the other. Indeed they are the interpenetrating opposites
necessary to create the energy required for the existence
of a whole.
The concept can be visualized as a black hole that consumes it's self over and
over again to the point of infinite compression and back again.
Here we find ourselves somewhere between being born and dying , traveling in
the Tao
of time.
don.......
xepera
Millie Merced wrote
>Merry Christmas, asshole
you are either from alt.virtual-adepts,
alt.consciousness
or hell
(xepera)
Millie Merced
or half-joke, or surrerealist manifesto?) these very un-Christmasy
lines--->
>:don't be a fool
xepera
you sound like an interesting nadja
visit the underground cafe at news:alt.surrealism
(end of reel)
Bill Cleere
> you really need a more current understanding of cognition before you're going to
> understand my sig file.
>
> -- barrett
You professors are like kids who've been playing on eight-foot
hoops. You can do all kinds of fancy dunks and beat up on
the junior high kids, but now you've made the mistake of
showing up at the real playground. This one has ten-foot rims
(well, most of 'em are actually nine-and-a-half 'cause
mothafuckas be hangin' on em...)
This is why your shots are not even leaving your hands, man.
You got no game. None whatsoever.
-- Bill Cleere
Nikolaus Maack
Bill Cleere (acl...@best.com) writes (regarding Barrett):
> This is why your shots are not even leaving your hands, man.
> You got no game. None whatsoever.
Them university types come to the park to play, and they don't even know
when they're getting their asses whipped. They think 'cause we don't talk
that fancy university lingo, we don't know jack. That's why Barrett's so
goddamn sad. He's losing, and he don't even know he's losing. He plays
his game out of a textbook, while we play from the soul, and then he's got
the cojones to say we ain't playing right 'cause we ain't reading his
goddamn book.
Er, not that this is about winning or losing. It's about... Uh...
Something else. Um... Some other thing. Something... that isn't...
winning. I forget what.
Oh, and merry Christmas, motherfuckers.
barrett john erickson
Bill Cleere wrote:
>
> barrett john erickson wrote:
>
> > you really need a more current understanding of cognition before you're going to
> > understand my sig file.
> >
> > -- barrett
>
> You professors are like kids who've been playing on eight-foot
> hoops. You can do all kinds of fancy dunks and beat up on
> the junior high kids, but now you've made the mistake of
> showing up at the real playground. This one has ten-foot rims
> (well, most of 'em are actually nine-and-a-half 'cause
> mothafuckas be hangin' on em...)
>
> This is why your shots are not even leaving your hands, man.
> You got no game. None whatsoever.
i really have no idea why you bothered to post this, since you say nothing and my
comments were obviously aimed at "Andrea" (who is, after all, the one responsible for
littering which ever group you call home with my presence, as well as alt.surrealism
with yours).
i'd be happy to remove your group from further posts (as i did with previous posts)
if you and your neighbors reciprocate and remove alt.surrealism from your replies.
your playground doesn't interest me.
Bill Cleere
>
> Bill Cleere wrote:
> >
> > barrett john erickson wrote:
> >
> > > you really need a more current understanding of cognition before you're going to
> > > understand my sig file.
> > >
> > > -- barrett
> >
> > You professors are like kids who've been playing on eight-foot
> > hoops. You can do all kinds of fancy dunks and beat up on
> > the junior high kids, but now you've made the mistake of
> > showing up at the real playground. This one has ten-foot rims
> > (well, most of 'em are actually nine-and-a-half 'cause
> > mothafuckas be hangin' on em...)
> >
> > This is why your shots are not even leaving your hands, man.
> > You got no game. None whatsoever.
>
> i really have no idea why you bothered to post this,
Neither do I. It's definitely way too not boring for
this thread.
since you say nothing and my
> comments were obviously aimed at "Andrea" (who is, after all, the one responsible for
> littering which ever group you call home with my presence, as well as alt.surrealism
> with yours).
>
> i'd be happy to remove your group from further posts (as i did with previous posts)
> if you and your neighbors reciprocate and remove alt.surrealism from your replies.
I can't speak for my "neighbors". But I'll remove a.s
all right. What a bore.
>
> your playground doesn't interest me.
>
> -- 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
-- Bill Cleere
barrett john erickson
Nikolaus Maack wrote:
> Them university types come to the park to play, and they don't even know
> when they're getting their asses whipped. They think 'cause we don't talk
> that fancy university lingo, we don't know jack. That's why Barrett's so
> goddamn sad. He's losing, and he don't even know he's losing. He plays
> his game out of a textbook, while we play from the soul, and then he's got
> the cojones to say we ain't playing right 'cause we ain't reading his
> goddamn book.
i think it's accurate to say that you've had far more experience with the university,
its "types" and its "lingo" than i. and far more recently.
[also, let's not forget hare professor, that it is you who is so fond of critiquing
the way i write.]
in fact, if i were as loose with insult, generalizations and stereotypes as you've
become over the past few weeks (not that you haven't had provocation from some), i
might suggest that _you_ are the current "university type" -- well steeped in
post-modernist attitude and Brechtian distance (the medium is the only message to
paraphrase "Andrea").
but your post does raise a couple of interesting questions:
"surrealism" isn't just a game i play -- is that what it is for you?
perhaps all living is a game for you?
it's an approach as valid as any other, i suppose, but this approach is dada rather
than surrealist, and would certainly have the consequence of eliminating any
remaining possibility of me ever taking you seriously again in a discussion about
matters surrealist (of course this wouldn't matter to you, but it would to me).
[note: "game" and "play" are not interchangeable here. life as play is not the same
as life as a game. the imagination in the former is fully integrated, the
imagination in the latter is just a tool of manipulation.]
i would've felt no need to ask these questions if you hadn't decided to christen me
an enemy -- a role i refuse to accept from anyone -- and repeatedly attempted to
provoke a counter-attack.
so, it comes essentially to this: do you act, or are you an actor?
Robert Scott Martin
>In article <Sylg2s0K...@zetnet.co.uk>,
>Is surrealism the kingdom of yes or no?
i. both/and -- union of opposites, alchemical (hegelian) fusion
ii. either/or -- the agony of the copula or cross, kierkegaard and silence
[e. neither/nor -- the radically non-extant, frankfurter zero]
iii. [] -- eternal errantry, the road which is always between Rome and
Athens
Thank you. I owe all.
Brandon J. Freels
>Here we find ourselves somewhere between being born and >dying, traveling
in the Tao of time.
Brandon:
I don't have a problem with your interpretation. My whole point the past few
months has been:
1. Taoism is not Surrealism and Surrealism is not Taoism.
2. Any "connection" between Taoism and Surrealism can only be created by a
mis-interpretation of both Taoism and Surrealism.
What I am not saying is that Taoism is evil, or even an enemy of Surrealism.
I see Taoism as one of the more acceptable forms of Oriental religion ---
where as Buddhism is one of the least acceptable for it goes against Desire.
I see no "connection" between Taoism and Surrealism, but I do see, when
stepping back a million miles, a similarity. Let me remind you that a
similarity does not mean a "connection." The closer I get to the two
concepts the more distinct and unique both become. Eventually, when I am as
close as I can possibly get, the two look nothing a like.
Nikolaus Maack
"Brandon J. Freels" (Fre...@ethergate.com) writes:
> I see no "connection" between Taoism and Surrealism, but I do see, when
> stepping back a million miles, a similarity. Let me remind you that a
> similarity does not mean a "connection." The closer I get to the two
> concepts the more distinct and unique both become. Eventually, when I am as
> close as I can possibly get, the two look nothing a like.
I win. Now you have to blow me. And it only took, what? Three months to
get you to this point? Wow. And the only reason you've made this sudden
about face is because Breton, your God, said Taoism has some worth. Sad.
And intellectually dishonest, on your part. Oh well.
For our next trick, the posters to alt.surrealism will get you to give
away all your worldly posessions and join a buddhist monestary. It should
only take a year or two.
Button, button, who pushed the button? Er, not that you've been
manipulated by us. Of course not. Obviously you still think religion is
evil and wrong. Only now there is a speck of Taoism in your soul. Soon
it will grow and take over a larger portion of your brain. Before you
know it, we'll have you on a street corner handing out free bibles,
preaching the word of Jesus and his Christian friends.
I should not joke. Your post is the closest you've come to tolerating the
ideas of others. It must have hurt like hell to admit even as little as
you did. And yet I cannot help but laugh. Oh well.
Nik
--
Playboy is to porn, what wine coolers are to getting drunk. No one in
their right mind gets drunk on wine coolers.
Brandon J. Freels
Nikolaus Maack wrote
>I win ... Sad. And intellectually dishonest, on your part. Oh well.
Brandon:
And what do you win? Obviously my point has been manipulated. I was just
re-stating my original thoughts from about five months ago when I had this
conversation with Talysman. Surrealism is not Taoism and Taoism is not
Surrealism. Only when seen from Pluto do the two look alike, but the closer
you get the more different they are.
No I don't see Taoism as "the worst religion of all time," but it does call
to repress action so maybe it does make the list.
Lets look over Taoist concepts and how they are not Surrealism:
The Tao: the way, or the path.
Surrealism needs no path. Surrealist follow no yellow brick road, but jump
into the forest in search of the Marvelous.
Yin and Yang: the interplay of negative (black, female, evil, earth) and
positive (white, male, good, heaven).
Surrealism cares little for the interplay of negative and positive but a
synthesis of the two. Also, how could Surrealism accept the sexist and
racist views (women and black as evil) contained in the yin and yang?
Wu-Wei: to follow the Tao, or the natural flow of nature.
Surrealism is not interested in following. Let me remind you that automatism
and objective chance in the Surrealist sense all call for the individuals
"active participation," and do not promote sitting back and following any
sort of natural flow. Automatism and objective chance are not humble or
passive actions.
To finalize, one thing should be made clear: Surrealism often looks at
mysticism, spiritualism, magic, and others with the admiration for the
"expression" but not for the "thesis."
Nikolaus Maack
I'm throwing this out to the Buddhists of the net, most of whom have some
understanding of Taoism as well. I'm hoping they can help clear up
some of the major misunderstanding you're suffering from, Brandon.
> The Tao: the way, or the path.
> Surrealism needs no path. Surrealist follow no yellow brick road, but jump
> into the forest in search of the Marvelous.
Taoism is not a path one follows. All that exists follows Tao. Tao is
the flow of the universe. To say that a Taoist chooses Tao is saying a
fish chooses water. We're in it. Tao is everyone and everything and even
this is a lie. The tao that can be described is not The Tao.
To say you jump into the forest in search of the marvelous, is, itself, a
Taoist concept. Of course, you also could stay at home and look for the
marvelous in the fingernail of your right pinky finger. Or in the
movements of sand through an hourglass. Or watching the patterns of TV
commercials.
Think of it this way... Chaos theorists are attempting to describe the
various motions and formulas that many natural phenomena follow. This,
in a way, is an attempt to find the Tao of the universe. The very pattern
of reality.
What do surrealists attempt to do, if not figure out what the Taoists
refer to as the Tao? A surrealist tries to strip away the fabric of
reality to get to its core, its real nature. And what might that core be,
using different terminology? The Tao.
> Yin and Yang: the interplay of negative (black, female, evil, earth) and
> positive (white, male, good, heaven).
> Surrealism cares little for the interplay of negative and positive but a
> synthesis of the two. Also, how could Surrealism accept the sexist and
> racist views (women and black as evil) contained in the yin and yang?
You're taking an ancient symbol and twisting it into something it is not.
Have you ever looked at a real ying-yang symbol? Each colour contains a
tiny speck of the other. Neither is pure. And you're falling prey to a
typical misunderstanding. White is not "good" and black is not "evil".
The two are merely opposites that balance one another. The friction is
necessary for us to be able to tell one thing from another and for there
to be movement.
A concept that is repeated throughout the Tao Teh Ching: the long is known
thanks to the short, the rich is known thanks to the poor. The only way
an object can be described is within its context. No one knows what good
is, unless we point at evil, for example. And there is no such thing as
one without the other.
> Wu-Wei: to follow the Tao, or the natural flow of nature.
> Surrealism is not interested in following. Let me remind you that automatism
> and objective chance in the Surrealist sense all call for the individuals
> "active participation," and do not promote sitting back and following any
> sort of natural flow. Automatism and objective chance are not humble or
> passive actions.
Wu-wei is following your own true nature. Instead of struggling and
screaming and bashing your head against a wall, sit down and listen to
what's inside your self. This will tell you what direction to follow
better than any philosophy, school of art, or religion. Wu-wei means to
follow YOUR Tao. This does not mean yielding to some great god power, nor
does it mean to listen to the Taoist leaders (no such thing). It means to
find out who you are, and be that person. How you fit into the network.
Wu-wei (unless I've lost my mind) translates to action through inaction.
In my opinion, this means to act from within, to act througyh inner
strength, that the centre of everything you do should be YOUR centre.
Which, I believe, is a VERY surrealist concept. Find the inside of your
own head, discover your own symbols, deconstruct your own soul, and then
BE the person that you really are.
I welcome all the comments of all the people of the net on this topic. Go
nuts.
Brandon J. Freels
what this is all about. Nik has, in alt.surrealism, tried to propose the
idea that Taoism and Surrealism are the same, and furthermore that Buddhism
and Surrealism are the same. Of course they are not since the "Four Noble
Truths" of Buddhism go against Surrealism and vice versa --- I am also
interested to hear how the Buddhists or Taoists feel about such scrambling
of their beliefs --- to make it something that its not]
Nikolaus Maack wrote
>Taoism is not a path one follows. All that exists follows Tao. Tao >is
the flow of the universe ...
Brandon:
Surrealists have no concern for the path. There is no surrealist who
believes in the existence of the flow of the universe. The idea of "chance"
goes against any "flow," for if there is a flow then their is a driving
force and if there is a driving force there is determinism, which leaves no
room for chance.
>A surrealist tries to strip away the fabric of reality to get to its core,
>its real nature. And what might that core be, using different
>terminology? The Tao.
Brandon:
Surrealism is not about "stripping" anything. How many Taoists out there
believe the Tao to be the unconscious? Not many. That's like saying a
Christian believes Christ to be the unconscious.
>You're taking an ancient symbol and twisting it into something it is not.
Brandon:
Actually, the symbol is not that old. Maybe 18th or 19th century, if I
remember correctly from my Asian History classes. Only the concept is
ancient.
>Wu-wei is following your own true nature. Instead of struggling and
>screaming and bashing your head against a wall, sit down and >listen to
what's inside your self.
Brandon:
Are you saying people who desire to bash their heads in are not "really"
desiring to bash their heads in?
>Wu-wei (unless I've lost my mind) translates to action through inaction.
Brandon:
Action through inaction is against Surrealism. Don't you know of Dali
kicking the blind guy down because he felt like it? Don't you know that
inaction is repression (unless it is desired). Why do you think the
Surrealists put "Gandhi" on their 'Do not Read' list?
>deconstruct your own soul, and then BE the person that you really are.
Brandon:
This is where you go wrong. Surrealism is not about deconstruction. If
anything it is about addition. We are taught from birth by society to
deconstruct, repress, etc., and surrealism says to unleash that which has
been deconstructed. Then you will BE the person that you really are.
Nikolaus Maack
> what this is all about. Nik has, in alt.surrealism, tried to propose the
> idea that Taoism and Surrealism are the same, and furthermore that Buddhism
> and Surrealism are the same.
*sigh* I never said any such thing. I said they had enough in common
that an examination of all three, comparing the similarities and
contrasts, would prove very useful. Something you seem to agree with. Or
presumably we wouldn't be having this conversation.
> Surrealists have no concern for the path. There is no surrealist who
> believes in the existence of the flow of the universe. The idea of "chance"
> goes against any "flow," for if there is a flow then their is a driving
> force and if there is a driving force there is determinism, which leaves no
> room for chance.
Gotta love those broad sweeping generalizations. There is no surrealist
who believes in the existence of the flow of the universe? Babe, you're
talking to one!
Besides which, things are always more complicated than philosophy 101, in
my books. You can have a determinist universe with free will. It's one
of the joys of my life. Everything that happens is meant to happen, part
of the enormous scheme of reality, and yet we get to pick and choose what
we do. It all just works out that way. Why? Who cares? It works.
Forget logic.
Most of the overly-thoughtful people I talk to are forced to admit, on a
logical level, that free will is a myth. After all, we are biological
machines, programmed by every experience we undergo. And yet in the here
and now, in the moment, non-logically, free will seems instinctively true.
So why not say we have both, and move on? Doesn't seem like a big issue
to me anyway. But obviously it is to you, Brandon, for some reason.
Explain why, if you can.
Chance is interesting, both to a surrealist and to a Taoist, because there
is meaning in the random. You can argue that our minds project meaning
into the random, thus giving it meaning, or... Or you could say that the
random is not in fact random. It follows a pattern. The Tao.
Of course, it seems to me that the Tao Teh Ching argues quite clearly that
the line between subjective and objective is an illusion. There's no line
at all. All there is simply IS. I don't know if I can express this any
more clearly at this time of night, so I'll move on.
> Surrealism is not about "stripping" anything. How many Taoists out there
> believe the Tao to be the unconscious? Not many. That's like saying a
> Christian believes Christ to be the unconscious.
The Tao is the unconscious but it is also the conscious. In the case of
Taoism, I think it makes sense to suggest that most of our understanding
of Tao is on an unconscious level. Our conscious minds insist on logic
and order and things that make sense. For this very reason, life often
appears completely illogical and chaotic, on a conscious level.
Unconsciously, life often makes complete sense. Ever had that odd
experience where something happens, something weird and unexpected, and
part of you says, "Of course. Right. This makes perfect sense. This was
meant to happen."? After all, the tao that can be described is not The
Tao. Which can be taken to mean, the tao that is experienced on a
conscious level, on a level that can be described in logical words and
sentences, isn't really anywhere near a real understanding of Tao. The
real grasp of life takes place in instinct, in subconscious.
Of course it is also said that the person who talks about the tao doesn't
know what the hell they are talking about. (So what do I know? *grin*)
Just like that wonderful Buddhist koan. "If you meet the Buddha on the
road, kill him." Why? One possible answer is because if you meet the
Buddha on the road, he isn't the real Buddha.
[The yin-yang]
> Actually, the symbol is not that old. Maybe 18th or 19th century, if I
> remember correctly from my Asian History classes. Only the concept is
> ancient.
Which doesn't address the issue that your particular view of the symbol is
utterly off base, but never mind.
[Wu-Wei]
> Are you saying people who desire to bash their heads in are not "really"
> desiring to bash their heads in?
Well, it depends on what level you want to talk on. Some might argue that
any poor slob who wants to bang their head against a wall does so because
it is their karma to do so. It's their destiny to bang their head, and so
they do. It would be foolish to suggest they do anything else. (Unless
it's your karma to go around trying to stop people from bashing their
heads in.)
On the other hand, on another level, anyone who runs about frantically
trying to figure themselves out by looking at the world, never looking
within, constantly crashing into things, could use a different approach,
one that is much more productive. It's presumptuous to offer them one,
but it might be nice to at least let them know there are other options.
Remember, when I said that some people run around, bashing their heads
against walls, I was using it to describe those people that are always
looking for meaning in the things outside of themselves. It's very
difficult to keep looking inward, ignoring all the forces outside.
Someone or something always struggles to drag us away from introspection
and meditation. Be it a 9-to-5 job or a television commercial, a lover,
or a physical desire... Something is always trying to drag us back into
the world.
And when I say the world, I mean that non-thinking hell-hole full of
sitcoms and rock videos and meaningless work and consumerism.
> Action through inaction is against Surrealism.
You're getting caught in the words of what I'm saying, and not the meaning
of it. Wu-wei does not mean sitting on your ass in a field of daisies and
basking in all knowing power. There is ACTION in wu-wei. You do things.
What you do NOT do is think about what you are doing. In a way, wu-wei is
the ultimate in behaving automatically.
> Don't you know of Dali
> kicking the blind guy down because he felt like it? Don't you know that
> inaction is repression (unless it is desired). Why do you think the
> Surrealists put "Gandhi" on their 'Do not Read' list?
What Dali did completely follows wu-wei. What a person not following
wu-wei would do would be to see the blind man, feel the impulse, and then
begin to worry. They would question the desire, the morality, the whole
insanity of the act. What Dali did was have a desire, and act on it
without thinking, without looking to the outside world for confirmation.
(Action without action. Get it?) He didn't turn to Bill, standing next to
him, and say, "I have the desire to kick that blind man. Should I act on
the desire?"
Don't let the word INACTION drive you mad. Wu-wei means to ACT without
acting. This means to do what comes naturally to you, without worrying
about it making sense. My understanding of wu-wei (which might differ
from the understanding other people have) is completely in synch with
surrealist ideas.
By the way, the idea of surrealists having a "do not read" list of books
is very depressing. I know you meant this as only a metaphor, meaning
that Ghandi is not a surrealist, but the idea that certain writers and
thinkers are tabboo seems very... foolish. Everything is potentially
useful. So Ghandi chose non-violence as a method of protest. He still
protested. He still DID something. You may argue against his philosophy,
but you have to admit it did achieve something. It still got him noticed.
> This is where you go wrong. Surrealism is not about deconstruction. If
> anything it is about addition. We are taught from birth by society to
> deconstruct, repress, etc., and surrealism says to unleash that which has
> been deconstructed. Then you will BE the person that you really are.
Interesting. My understanding of surrealists is that they are all
absolutely in love with Freud. It would then seem to me that surrealists
should want to look at their own impulses, their own Freudian desires, and
express them. Hence Dali's paintings, many of which deal with Oedipal
desire and castration anxiety. It seems to me that Freud, and other
philosophers who talk about our darker impulses, give us useful sign posts
as to where we might like to dig inside our own heads.
But what you seem to be saying is that surrealists want to express all
desires, unleash the contents of the mind without being overly critical of
the results. I don't see how deconstructing necessarily means repression,
though. The only difference, as I see it, between what you're saying and
what I'm saying, is that I believe that after you spew all your thoughts
on to the page, you might want to back and re-read what you've got,
looking for what might be of meaning to you, the artist. This can only
help you figure yourself out.
Am I right when I say that you see no reason in looking back, and trying
to figure yourself out?
In this sense, you're almost more Buddhist than I am. My understanding of
Buddhism goes something like this:
1. You walk your dog. You do this without thinking, without noticing how
you do it. The entire act practically has nothing to do with your
conscious mind.
2. Then you begin to study Buddhism, and you want to become aware of all
your actions. You carefully remain aware as you walk your dog, noting all
the details, all the emotions, all the experiences.
3. In the end, you once again walk your dog without thinking about it.
You've grown to understand the experience to the point that, while
entirely in the moment, it is now so instinctual that you don't have to
THINK about thinking about walking the dog.
Perhaps surrealism aims for the same goals.
1. People express themselves without giving it too much thought, not even
aware that they are repressing their own minds.
2. People then start to question the way they think and express
themselves. They start examining their own thought processes, working on
them.
3. In the end, the people are now able to express all their thoughts, all
their feelings, once again without giving it all that much thought, but
this time without censoring any of their ideas.
Is this a useful comparison? Let me know.
Nik
--
"Many people (mostly young children) are killed each year by dogs. Also,
if you keep up with the news, it is not uncommon for criminals to have
dogs." --Paul Francis explains why dogs are evil
Brandon J. Freels
>I said they had enough in common that an examination of all three...
Brandon:
I say anything can have something in common if you step back further enough.
You are viewing all three of these theories from another Galaxy and that's
why you see them as having simularities. Why don't you read Nadeau's History
of Surrealism, or Breton's Manifestos.
>Gotta love those broad sweeping generalizations. There is no >surrealist
who believes in the existence of the flow of the universe? >Babe, you're
talking to one!
Brandon:
You are not a Surrealist. What do you know of Surrealism? Also, Surrealism
is not concerned with Karma. Karma, which deals with reincarnation, is
exterior. Who cares? The Surrealist does not!
>What you do NOT do is think about what you are doing. In a way, >wu-wei is
the ultimate in behaving automatically.
Brandon:
No, wu-wei is to let things come to you. Surrealism goes to things. Wu-Wei
is another way to repress desires. "I'm just going to go about my business
and let things come to me." Where as the Surrealist is a discoverer, a
hunter, looking for that Marvelous experience. He cares not for "waiting"
for things. He wants to find them.
>Don't let the word INACTION drive you mad. Wu-wei means to >ACT without
acting.
Brandon:
I think this is what "YOU" want wu-wei to mean. Afterall, we here at
alt.surrealism know of your loose definitions of words.
>Interesting. My understanding of surrealists is that they are all
>absolutely in love with Freud. It would then seem to me that >surrealists
should want to look at their own impulses, their own >Freudian desires, and
express them.
Brandon:
Frued was just one of the ancestors to Surrealism. Many of them laughed at
him (Magritte). Surrealism is not theropy. Surrealist DO NOT go by any book
of Frued's and say "Today I'm going to paint a picture of my castration
complex." That would get them nowhere. Also, Frued didn't even understand
Surrealism, and by the late 1920's was almost forgotten by much of
Surrealism.
>But what you seem to be saying is that surrealists want to express >all
desires, unleash the contents of the mind without being overly >critical of
the results.
Brandon:
Yes. Name a Surrealist artist who analyzed his work, and said "This is what
this is about, and this is what this is about." Dali doesn't count for he
was not a Surrealist after 1933.
>I don't see how deconstructing necessarily means repression,
>though. The only difference, as I see it, between what you're >saying and
what I'm saying, is that I believe that after you spew all >your thoughts on
to the page, you might want to back and re-read >what you've got, looking
for what might be of meaning to you, the >artist. This can only help you
figure yourself out.
Brandon:
Really? How so? How can this help you figure yourself out? Magritte didn't
even believe in psychology. Was he trying figure himself out?
>Am I right when I say that you see no reason in looking back, and >trying
to figure yourself out?
Brandon:
Only in psychoanalytical means. But if we use art for psychoanalysis it is
no longer Surrealist art but psychoanalytic art. Surrealism is not
psychoanalysis. For the patient (the insane) who draws just to draw then
maybe we can see it as Surrealism, but for the analysist it is not
Surrealism. The analysist is playing the part of the art critic. Booh!!!
>Is this a useful comparison? Let me know.
Brandon:
No, this is not a useful comparison.
Buddhism:
1. life is suffering
2. suffering is caused by desire
3. cease the desire
4. follow the eight-fold path
Am I wrong, Buddhists?
Sphere
...
>
> Brandon:
> No, this is not a useful comparison.
Daoism and the Dharma are different
religions which don't have much in
common.
> Buddhism:
> 1. life is suffering
> 2. suffering is caused by desire
> 3. cease the desire
> 4. follow the eight-fold path
>
> Am I wrong, Buddhists?
All you've done is type some words.
'Suffering' isn't even a very good
translation. Many prefer 'stress'.
'Desire' misses the point. The
translation usually used is
'attachment'. In fact, desire
arises with attachment to things.
Buddhism does not accept
substantialist causality, but
it is not acausualist either --
as I've seen mention that
Surrealism does elsewhere in
this thread. The notion of
a living path is pure Taoism,
and has nothing to do with
the Dhamma. Siddhartha
taught of the middle way between
substantialism and nihilism.
BTW -- You've chosen to cross-post
to followers of the Fat Guy, El
Dupree -- watch out for vinal
head sacks. You probably need
one.
Sphere.
--
ABSFG: transmitting the Dharma through chocolate. -- Trin
Ali Hassan
Brandon J. Freels wrote in message ...
>Nikolaus Maack wrote
>>I said they had enough in common that an examination of all three...
>
>Brandon:
>I say anything can have something in common if you step back further
enough.
>You are viewing all three of these theories from another Galaxy and that's
>why you see them as having simularities. Why don't you read Nadeau's
History
>of Surrealism, or Breton's Manifestos.
>
>who believes in the existence of the flow of the universe? >Babe, you're
>talking to one!
>
>
>You are not a Surrealist. What do you know of Surrealism? Also, Surrealism
>is not concerned with Karma. Karma, which deals with reincarnation, is
>exterior. Who cares? The Surrealist does not!
>
is
>the ultimate in behaving automatically.
>
>
>No, wu-wei is to let things come to you. Surrealism goes to things. Wu-Wei
>is another way to repress desires. "I'm just going to go about my business
>and let things come to me." Where as the Surrealist is a discoverer, a
>hunter, looking for that Marvelous experience. He cares not for "waiting"
>for things. He wants to find them.
>
>acting.
>
>I think this is what "YOU" want wu-wei to mean. Afterall, we here at
>alt.surrealism know of your loose definitions of words.
>
>>absolutely in love with Freud. It would then seem to me that >surrealists
>should want to look at their own impulses, their own >Freudian desires, and
>express them.
>
>Frued was just one of the ancestors to Surrealism. Many of them laughed at
>him (Magritte). Surrealism is not theropy. Surrealist DO NOT go by any book
>of Frued's and say "Today I'm going to paint a picture of my castration
>complex." That would get them nowhere. Also, Frued didn't even understand
>Surrealism, and by the late 1920's was almost forgotten by much of
>Surrealism.
>
>desires, unleash the contents of the mind without being overly >critical of
>the results.
>
>Yes. Name a Surrealist artist who analyzed his work, and said "This is what
>this is about, and this is what this is about." Dali doesn't count for he
>was not a Surrealist after 1933.
>
>>though. The only difference, as I see it, between what you're >saying and
>what I'm saying, is that I believe that after you spew all >your thoughts
on
>to the page, you might want to back and re-read >what you've got, looking
>for what might be of meaning to you, the >artist. This can only help you
>figure yourself out.
>
>
>Really? How so? How can this help you figure yourself out? Magritte didn't
>even believe in psychology. Was he trying figure himself out?
>
>
>to figure yourself out?
>
>Only in psychoanalytical means. But if we use art for psychoanalysis it is
>no longer Surrealist art but psychoanalytic art. Surrealism is not
>psychoanalysis. For the patient (the insane) who draws just to draw then
>maybe we can see it as Surrealism, but for the analysist it is not
>Surrealism. The analysist is playing the part of the art critic. Booh!!!
>
>
>
>No, this is not a useful comparison.
>
>1. life is suffering
>2. suffering is caused by desire
>3. cease the desire
>4. follow the eight-fold path
>
>Am I wrong, Buddhists?
>
luc...@usa.net
>
> > Buddhism:
> > 1. life is suffering
> > 2. suffering is caused by desire
> > 3. cease the desire
> > 4. follow the eight-fold path
> >
> > Am I wrong, Buddhists?
>
>
> 'Suffering' isn't even a very good
> translation. Many prefer 'stress'.
Or "sensation of unsatisfactoriness"
-----------== Posted via Deja News, The Discussion Network ==----------
http://www.dejanews.com/ Search, Read, Discuss, or Start Your Own
barrett john erickson
Nikolaus Maack wrote:
> I'm throwing this out to the Buddhists of the net, most of whom have some
> understanding of Taoism as well. I'm hoping they can help clear up
> some of the major misunderstanding you're suffering from, Brandon.
my intention is certainly not to prolong this thread, but i had to make note that
this was a very informative post (assuming Nik is accurately conveying what he
believes to be "true").
it clearly exposed the differences between "surrealism" and Nik's understanding of
taoism as well as Nik's misconceptions about the former.
[this, of course, poses the question of how accurate his description of tao was, but
that doesn't interest me. Clayton is quite right: it's time to move on -- time for
those who understand it to engage the shared project more directly.]
dr...@ecity.net
Ali Hassan wrote in message ...
>
>Brandon J. Freels wrote in message ...
>>Nikolaus Maack wrote
>>>I said they had enough in common that an examination of all three...
>>
>>Brandon:
>>I say anything can have something in common if you step back further
>enough.
>>You are viewing all three of these theories from another Galaxy and that's
>>why you see them as having simularities. Why don't you read Nadeau's
>History
>>of Surrealism, or Breton's Manifestos.
>>
>>who believes in the existence of the flow of the universe? >Babe, you're
>>talking to one!
>>
>>
>>You are not a Surrealist. What do you know of Surrealism? Also, Surrealism
>>is not concerned with Karma. Karma, which deals with reincarnation, is
>>exterior. Who cares? The Surrealist does not!
>>
>is
>>the ultimate in behaving automatically.
>>
>>
>>No, wu-wei is to let things come to you. Surrealism goes to things. Wu-Wei
>>is another way to repress desires. "I'm just going to go about my business
>>and let things come to me." Where as the Surrealist is a discoverer, a
>>hunter, looking for that Marvelous experience. He cares not for "waiting"
>>for things. He wants to find them.
>>
>>acting.
>>
>>I think this is what "YOU" want wu-wei to mean. Afterall, we here at
>>alt.surrealism know of your loose definitions of words.
>>
>>>absolutely in love with Freud. It would then seem to me that
>surrealists
>>should want to look at their own impulses, their own >Freudian desires,
and
>>express them.
>>
>>Frued was just one of the ancestors to Surrealism. Many of them laughed at
>>him (Magritte). Surrealism is not theropy. Surrealist DO NOT go by any
book
>>of Frued's and say "Today I'm going to paint a picture of my castration
>>complex." That would get them nowhere. Also, Frued didn't even understand
>>Surrealism, and by the late 1920's was almost forgotten by much of
>>Surrealism.
>>
>>desires, unleash the contents of the mind without being overly >critical
of
>>the results.
>>
>>Yes. Name a Surrealist artist who analyzed his work, and said "This is
what
>>this is about, and this is what this is about." Dali doesn't count for he
>>was not a Surrealist after 1933.
>>
>>>though. The only difference, as I see it, between what you're >saying
and
>>what I'm saying, is that I believe that after you spew all >your thoughts
>on
>>to the page, you might want to back and re-read >what you've got, looking
>>for what might be of meaning to you, the >artist. This can only help you
>>figure yourself out.
>>
>>
>>Really? How so? How can this help you figure yourself out? Magritte didn't
>>even believe in psychology. Was he trying figure himself out?
>>
>>
>>to figure yourself out?
>>
>>Only in psychoanalytical means. But if we use art for psychoanalysis it is
>>no longer Surrealist art but psychoanalytic art. Surrealism is not
>>psychoanalysis. For the patient (the insane) who draws just to draw then
>>maybe we can see it as Surrealism, but for the analysist it is not
>>Surrealism. The analysist is playing the part of the art critic. Booh!!!
>>
>>
>>
>>No, this is not a useful comparison.
>>
>>1. life is suffering
>>2. suffering is caused by desire
>>3. cease the desire
>>4. follow the eight-fold path
>>
>>Am I wrong, Buddhists?
>>
Well, I'm confused by the fact of Surrealism being called a religion.
I thought it was a form of art.
Religion is also an art, but so is life an art.
Can you define Surrealism as religion?
(or is that the argument?)
I just figured Surrealism to be a label that an art critic would use. The
artist wouldn't
give a fucking fly. She paints. What other people call it doesn't matter.
droll
>
Sphere
>
> In article <36878157...@my-dejanews.com>,
> Sphere <Spher...@my-dejanews.com> wrote:
> > "Brandon J. Freels" wrote:
> .
> >
> > > 1. life is suffering
> > > 2. suffering is caused by desire
> > > 3. cease the desire
> > > 4. follow the eight-fold path
> > >
> > > Am I wrong, Buddhists?
> >
> >
> > 'Suffering' isn't even a very good
> > translation. Many prefer 'stress'.
>
> Or "sensation of unsatisfactoriness"
Hmm. Never heard 'sensation' before
myself, but I like it.
'Unsatisfactoriness' always seems to
be in competition with
antidisestablishmentarianism to me.
(Just plain too long.)
Brandon J. Freels
---BJF
barrett john erickson wrote in message <3687CA8E...@skypoint.com>...
Brandon J. Freels
>you're going to let Barrett step in and slap you back into
>stupid posturing. Don't do it, man. Talk to me about matters of import.
Brandon:
Actually, when Clayton Francis gets annoyed into using capital letters
that's when you know you've gone to far. For his sake I have chosen to put
out this fire.
tri...@hotmail.com
"Brandon J. Freels" <Fre...@ethergate.com> wrote:
> Nikolaus Maack wrote
> Brandon:
> No, this is not a useful comparison.
>
> 1. life is suffering
> 2. suffering is caused by desire
> 3. cease the desire
> 4. follow the eight-fold path
>
> Am I wrong, Buddhists?
well Not quite right
1) All phenomenon in Samsara (this world where suffering exists)
contains some element of unsatisfactoriness.
<In all things in this world there is some element of shit happening>
I think you may be aiming at the 4 truth, but that's not the list you came up
with...
tri...@hotmail.com
>
> Well, I'm confused by the fact of Surrealism being called a religion.
> I thought it was a form of art.
It's a form of perception. ;)
and IMHO real life is pretty Surreal. (just watch CNN for an hour! zeesh!
now THAT would do Dali proud.)
>
> I just figured Surrealism to be a label that an art critic would use. The
Or art historian...
> artist wouldn't
> give a fucking fly. She paints. What other people call it doesn't matter.
>
psst Droll, a percentage of Art (even the non-performing arts like painting
etc) is Talking about the Art.... ut oh, now I gave out a secret and the
Secret Brotherhood of Artists is going to come after me! OOhhhhh =)
TK
tri...@hotmail.com
Sphere <Spher...@my-dejanews.com> wrote:
> luc...@usa.net wrote:
> >
> > In article <36878157...@my-dejanews.com>,
> > Sphere <Spher...@my-dejanews.com> wrote:
> > > "Brandon J. Freels" wrote:
> > .
> > >
> > > > 1. life is suffering
> > > > 2. suffering is caused by desire
> > > > 3. cease the desire
> > > > 4. follow the eight-fold path
> > > >
> > > > Am I wrong, Buddhists?
> > >
> > >
> > > 'Suffering' isn't even a very good
> > > translation. Many prefer 'stress'.
> >
> > Or "sensation of unsatisfactoriness"
>
> Hmm. Never heard 'sensation' before
> myself, but I like it.
1) All phenomenon in Samsara contains some element of shit happening.
2) Whether it's good shit or bad shit it all passes
(All phenomenon in Samsara is impermanet)
3) All phenomenon in Samsara is empty of Self
(I'm having trouble with tavernizing this one)
4) Nirvana is no shit.
(Nirvana = Peace)
Howzat?
>
> 'Unsatisfactoriness' always seems to
> be in competition with
> antidisestablishmentarianism to me.
> (Just plain too long.)
"Shit Happens"
Nikolaus Maack
> ---BJF
We had some real communication going there for two or three posts,
Brandon, and you're going to let Barrett step in and slap you back into
stupid posturing. Don't do it, man. Talk to me about matters of import.
Nik
dr...@ecity.net
tri...@hotmail.com wrote in message <769j7l$oqb$1...@nnrp1.dejanews.com>...
>In article <3687d...@news3.paonline.com>,
> <dr...@ecity.net> wrote:
>>
>> Ali Hassan wrote in message ...
>> >
>> >Brandon J. Freels wrote in
>> >No buddhists, no response,no nothing.....except you're boring
>>
>second that, and I'm an artist... and kinda like surealism on occasion.
>
>> Well, I'm confused by the fact of Surrealism being called a religion.
>> I thought it was a form of art.
>
>It's a form of perception. ;)
>and IMHO real life is pretty Surreal. (just watch CNN for an hour! zeesh!
>now THAT would do Dali proud.)
>
>
>>
>> I just figured Surrealism to be a label that an art critic would use.
The
>
>Or art historian...
>
>> artist wouldn't
>> give a fucking fly. She paints. What other people call it doesn't
matter.
>>
>
>psst Droll, a percentage of Art (even the non-performing arts like painting
>etc) is Talking about the Art.... ut oh, now I gave out a secret and the
>Secret Brotherhood of Artists is going to come after me! OOhhhhh =)
But is it a religion?
Like the worship of Vincent Van Gogh?
(or Monet?)
How did we get involved?
>
>
>TK
Sphere
It's all your shit, not my shit. <TeeHee>
> 4) Nirvana is no shit.
> (Nirvana = Peace)
>
> Howzat?
>
> >
> > 'Unsatisfactoriness' always seems to
> > be in competition with
> > antidisestablishmentarianism to me.
> > (Just plain too long.)
>
> "Shit Happens"
>
Fredrock
>
> In article <3687FD25...@my-dejanews.com>,
> Sphere <Spher...@my-dejanews.com> wrote:
> > luc...@usa.net wrote:
> > >
> > > In article <36878157...@my-dejanews.com>,
> > > Sphere <Spher...@my-dejanews.com> wrote:
> > > > "Brandon J. Freels" wrote:
> > > .
> > > >
> > > > > Buddhism:
> > > > > 1. life is suffering
> > > > > 2. suffering is caused by desire
> > > > > 3. cease the desire
> > > > > 4. follow the eight-fold path
> > > > >
> > > > > Am I wrong, Buddhists?
You are wrong and not-wrong, both wrong and not-wrong, neither wrong nor
not-wrong. Paint that!
> > > > All you've done is type some words.
> > > >
> > > > 'Suffering' isn't even a very good
> > > > translation. Many prefer 'stress'.
> > >
> > > Or "sensation of unsatisfactoriness"
> >
> > Hmm. Never heard 'sensation' before
> > myself, but I like it.
How could you hear *anything* before your self?
> 1) All phenomenon in Samsara contains some element of shit happening.
> 2) Whether it's good shit or bad shit it all passes
> (All phenomenon in Samsara is impermanet)
> 3) All phenomenon in Samsara is empty of Self
> (I'm having trouble with tavernizing this one)
> 4) Nirvana is no shit.
> (Nirvana = Peace)
>
> Howzat?
"Tavernizing"?! Tavernize?! Trin, you're wonderful.
> > 'Unsatisfactoriness' always seems to
> > be in competition with
> > antidisestablishmentarianism to me.
> > (Just plain too long.)
>
> "Shit Happens"
Fred
Fredrock
>
> [since we are here at alt.Buddha then maybe the Buddhists should understand
> what this is all about. Nik has, in alt.surrealism, tried to propose the
> idea that Taoism and Surrealism are the same, and furthermore that Buddhism
> Truths" of Buddhism go against Surrealism and vice versa --- I am also
> interested to hear how the Buddhists or Taoists feel about such scrambling
> of their beliefs --- to make it something that its not]
>
> Nikolaus Maack wrote
> >Taoism is not a path one follows. All that exists follows Tao. Tao >is
> the flow of the universe ...
>
> Brandon:
But when you jump into the forest in search of the marvelou, you have
defned your path. In a boundless garden of infinitely forked paths, you
have chosen yours.
> There is no surrealist who
> believes in the existence of the flow of the universe. The idea of "chance"
> goes against any "flow," for if there is a flow then their is a driving
> force and if there is a driving force there is determinism, which leaves no
> room for chance.
The idea of chaos unites the two, and undermines any notion of
determinism.
> >A surrealist tries to strip away the fabric of reality to get to its core,
> >its real nature. And what might that core be, using different
> >terminology? The Tao.
>
> Brandon:
> Surrealism is not about "stripping" anything. How many Taoists out there
> believe the Tao to be the unconscious? Not many. That's like saying a
> Christian believes Christ to be the unconscious.
>
>
> >Wu-wei is following your own true nature.
>
> Brandon:
> Action through inaction is against Surrealism. Don't you know of Dali
> kicking the blind guy down because he felt like it? Don't you know that
> inaction is repression (unless it is desired). Why do you think the
> Surrealists put "Gandhi" on their 'Do not Read' list?
>
> >deconstruct your own soul, and then BE the person that you really are.
>
> Brandon:
> This is where you go wrong. Surrealism is not about deconstruction. If
> anything it is about addition. We are taught from birth by society to
> deconstruct, repress, etc., and surrealism says to unleash that which has
> been deconstructed. Then you will BE the person that you really are.
I thought surrealism wasn't "about" anything. I thought it *used*
jusxtaposition of ideas, images, symbols, and oft-overlooked everyday
objects to shock, provoke, induce laughter (Magritee does for me, at
least, Duchamp, too).
Does anyone here believe that Magritte or Dali or Kahlo or... was
thinking about the Surrealist Manifesto as he or she painted? Didn't
the manifesto follow the movement? Isn't it a bit of surrealism
itself?
To my knowledge (limited, at very best, but I love to spew), only
Duchamp ever "quoted" any surrealist works in his own (was it one of the
ready- mades?) Oddly enough, the sculpture I'm thinking of included a
page of a text by Henri Poincare--mathematician and philosopher (not
surrealist), and one of the earlist founders of chaos theory. Go figure
(or not).
Fred (who was it who said "The cheese that can be tasted is not the true
cheese"?)
barrett john erickson
Fredrock wrote:
> [...]
> I thought surrealism wasn't "about" anything. I thought it *used*
> jusxtaposition of ideas, images, symbols, and oft-overlooked everyday
> objects to shock, provoke, induce laughter (Magritee does for me, at
> least, Duchamp, too).
the surrealist project is to enhance reality by integrating the liberated imagination
into every day living.
> Does anyone here believe that Magritte or Dali or Kahlo or... was
> thinking about the Surrealist Manifesto as he or she painted? Didn't
> the manifesto follow the movement? Isn't it a bit of surrealism
> itself?
"surrealism" began as a literary exploration (in search of the source of creativity)
with the writing of Les Champs Magnetiques in 1919. the first manifesto was written
in 1924 and the movement was almost entirely made up of poets at that time. the
painters were drawn to "surrealism" because of its project, as first laid out in this
manifesto, and the examples of its experiments presented its various publications.
"surrealism" is not a style or school of art.
art is not necessary for "surrealism" -- all surrealists are not artists (in the
conventional sense). any art created by surrealists is only that: art created by a
surrealist. surrealist artists do not create surrealist works, but leave artifacts
of surrealist exploration.
Sphere
...
>
> "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
This's nice, but skip the clarification.
dr...@ecity.net
tri...@hotmail.com wrote:
> In article <3687d...@news3.paonline.com>,
> <dr...@ecity.net> wrote:
> >
> > Ali Hassan wrote in message ...
> > >
> > >Brandon J. Freels wrote in
> > >No buddhists, no response,no nothing.....except you're boring
> >
> second that, and I'm an artist... and kinda like surealism on occasion.
>
> > Well, I'm confused by the fact of Surrealism being called a religion.
> > I thought it was a form of art.
>
> It's a form of perception. ;)
> and IMHO real life is pretty Surreal. (just watch CNN for an hour! zeesh!
> now THAT would do Dali proud.)
>
> >
> > I just figured Surrealism to be a label that an art critic would use. The
>
> Or art historian...
>
> > artist wouldn't
> > give a fucking fly. She paints. What other people call it doesn't matter.
> >
>
> psst Droll, a percentage of Art (even the non-performing arts like painting
> etc) is Talking about the Art.... ut oh, now I gave out a secret and the
> Secret Brotherhood of Artists is going to come after me! OOhhhhh =)
>
>
Oh, I suppose. But usually I never get past, "Wow!" or thanking someone's
appreciation of my scribbles.
And I'm still confused as to how surrealism can be a religion.
droll
barrett john erickson
Sphere wrote:
> This's nice, but skip the clarification.
i could say the same about all the posts from alt.buddha.short.fat.guy about taoism
and buddhism.
i realize you didn't ask for your presence in alt.surrealism (we all have nik to
thank for that -- a lesson learned from "Andrea" no doubt), but you can't really
expect (those who know better in) alt.surrealism to ignore posts which misrepresent
"surrealism" (inadvertently or not) any more than i would expect you to ignore posts
which misrepresent your area of focus.
personally, i find two such posts to be my limit.
-- barrett
bar...@MagneticFields.org
http://www.MagneticFields.org/
"Everything tends to make us believe that there exists a certain point of the mind at
Sphere
>
> Sphere wrote:
>
> > This's nice, but skip the clarification.
>
> i could say the same about all the posts from alt.buddha.short.fat.guy about taoism
> and buddhism.
>
> i realize you didn't ask for your presence in alt.surrealism (we all have nik to
> thank for that -- a lesson learned from "Andrea" no doubt), but you can't really
> expect (those who know better in) alt.surrealism to ignore posts which misrepresent
> "surrealism" (inadvertently or not) any more than i would expect you to ignore posts
> which misrepresent your area of focus.
>
> personally, i find two such posts to be my limit.
Yea...
> -- 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
But that Breton quote is still nice.
Sphere.
[Standing on the lip
Of the canyon of openness
I lept down her throat.]
Dale Houstman
> > I do admit that I found the moral position I read into
> >Dale's response to my post where he seemed to say it was
> >more moral to jolt someone out of accustomed patterns
> >of thought in order to move them to some other pattern
> >of thought which you had previously devised, rather than
> >simply just jolting them, _seriously_ alien.
This is probably because you've simplified my (admittedly) vague
statement.
But let's just say that I'm a "serious alien" and leave it at that.
DMH
Talysman
Ali Hassan [ to Brandon ]:
:) No buddhists, no response,no nothing.....except you're boring
trinle:
:) second that, and I'm an artist... and kinda like surealism
:) on occasion.
droll:
:) Well, I'm confused by the fact of Surrealism being called
:) a religion. I thought it was a form of art.
trinle:
:) It's a form of perception. ;)
droll:
:) I'm still confused as to how surrealism can be a religion.
it's all a very long, boring story.
really, no one's saying surrealism's a religion, although the
people who would deny it most vigorously are treating it as
if it were one.
this is more an argument about what belongs to surrealism and
what doesn't... in theory, all experiences and desires, stripped
of the repressive legalist or moralist codes or other societal
restrictions, are the proper tools and domains of surrealism.
in practice, some so-called surrealists are so hung up on religion
that they rant and rave at anything that seems vaguely religious.
as is usual with antireligionists, their behavior is reminiscent
of religion.
believe it or not, this fight began several months ago over one
person posting comments about egyptian artistic depictions of
gods, and another person writing about sodomizing priests. both
of these posts were condemned as "unsurrealist", for reasons as
yet unclear. it all degenerated from there.
the specific relevance of the taoist/buddhist/surrealist thread
is that some people have made comments that zen buddhism's goal
of liberation, the simple natural outlook of taoism, and the
goal of both to apply the fruits of introspection to real life
(as well as the nondualism of both) fits in with similar goals
of surrealism, so something might actually be gained by reading
taoist or zen texts.
Breton said exactly the same thing, and I quoted his statement
earlier in alt.surrealism, but for some reason, some people just
don't get it. even though no one has said "taoism, buddhism, and
surrealism are identical" or "every belief of taoism and buddhism
should be added to surrealism," for some reason, this is exactly
the accusation we hear repeated ad infinitum from Pope Brandon
and company.
up until now, I haven't made many comments about the content
of either taoism or buddhism, I've just corrected Brandon's
silly "facts", such as his statement that Lao Tzu is an historical
figure born of a virgin. I will say now that he doesn't know
the first thing about either zen or taoism, so he ought to quit
while he is behind. same goes for Barrett and Dale, although
they seem to be less involved now.
mostly, it's just personality wars. Dale needs to publicly and
violently disagree with Nik at every opportunity, and Nik returns
the favor. Brandon disagrees with Nik alot, too, but he prefers
jumping on me (and even mentioned my name twice during my week's
vacation, which proves that my leaving alt.surrealism will change
nothing.) Barrett chips in whenever he sees an opportunity to
post at length about academic matters, but he's exhausted his
material now and has begun repeating himself. and Andrea Chen is
Andrea Chen.
only surrealists here who PRACTICE surrealism regularly and just
laugh at this endless crap are elag, perceptor, and a few others
whose names I can never remember how to spell. emulate them.
--
eskimo tricks are in our blood.
His Most Feathered Eminence, the Ur-Beatle
Fredrock
barrett john erickson wrote:
>
> Fredrock wrote:
>
> > [...]
>
> > I thought surrealism wasn't "about" anything. I thought it *used*
> > jusxtaposition of ideas, images, symbols, and oft-overlooked everyday
> > objects to shock, provoke, induce laughter (Magritee does for me, at
> > least, Duchamp, too).
>
> the surrealist project is to enhance reality by integrating the liberated imagination
> into every day living.
>
> > Does anyone here believe that Magritte or Dali or Kahlo or... was
> > thinking about the Surrealist Manifesto as he or she painted? Didn't
> > the manifesto follow the movement? Isn't it a bit of surrealism
> > itself?
>
> "surrealism" began as a literary exploration (in search of the source of creativity)
> with the writing of Les Champs Magnetiques in 1919. the first manifesto was written
> in 1924 and the movement was almost entirely made up of poets at that time. the
> painters were drawn to "surrealism" because of its project, as first laid out in this
> manifesto, and the examples of its experiments presented its various publications.
>
> "surrealism" is not a style or school of art.
>
> art is not necessary for "surrealism" -- all surrealists are not artists (in the
> conventional sense). any art created by surrealists is only that: art created by a
> surrealist. surrealist artists do not create surrealist works, but leave artifacts
> of surrealist exploration.
>
Dale Houstman
> >We had some real communication going there for two or three posts,
> >Brandon, and you're going to let Barrett step in and slap you back into
> >stupid posturing. Don't do it, man. Talk to me about matters of import.
>
> At least you don't have to be slapped back into stupid posturing. This is
> marvelous, Nik is slowly realizing that without people to hate his posts he
> barely exists at all, so now he's begging (or pretending to beg) for
> attention.
What a maroon...
DMH
> .
Perceptor
> cheese"?)
I would like to know what tigers cheese on a salt cracker would taste like. or
even dogs cheese.
I'll have some of the Chiwawa on a a corn tortilla please.
Clayton Francis
from your brains......surrealist methods please!
ver...@ihug.co.nz
wrote:
>> (who was it who said "The cheese that can be tasted is not the true
>> cheese"?)
Ralph the Rat
(Mickey Mouse's evil twin)
Perceptor
> On Thu, 31 Dec 1998 15:38:19 GMT, Perceptor <cwhe...@optonline.net>
> Did not and probaly will never write , but included as a quote in his
> reply to the person who included the quote in thier original post the
> following quote:
>
> >> (who was it who said "The cheese that can be tasted is not the true
> >> cheese"?)
>
> Ralph the Rat
> (Mickey Mouse's evil twin)
Dear Ralphie,
I have inserted the correct information to the text which you have
attributed to the Perceptor.
Thank you for your shared interest in mamallary
by products.
Licky Louse
(I give new meaning to the term "youth in Asia" )
Brian Drummond
>Fred (who was it who said "The cheese that can be tasted is not the true
>cheese"?)
something rapidly evolving within my fridge.
(There's stil tons of it left)
- Brian
Cat
Many have thought I was you and boy did I get in trouble for that
one...Eventually I learnt the ropes, but thank you for this interesting
history.
Andrea Chen <fallin...@earthlink.net> wrote:
> Medical Catastrophe wrote:
> >
>
> Thanks for the info. I still find the conjunction of cats curious.
>
> > Andrea Chen <fallin...@earthlink.net> wrote:
> >
> > > I sometimes wonder if later developments such as the meow brigade
or
> >
> > Meow.
> >
> > --
> > ---------------------------------------------------------------->
> > |\__/,| (`\ M E D I C A L C A T A S T R O P H E
> > meow. _.|o o |_ ) ) The 26th Smeeter Vote for Stepp!
> > -------(((-mr(((------------------------------------------------>
Cat