Surrealism is about living to your believes.
david anthony magitis
someone else. I am master I decide what I do. And Brandon you mentioned
changing the world for our own children, this goes against everything I
stand for. I will not teach my children this is the right way, once they
have grown I wish them to have there own minds. What ever they decide is
right for them. Freedom.
Dale Houstman
I seriously doubt if your children would understand what you're talkking
about either, or even be particularly interested in cutting through the
white noise to get to the empty container within.
It isn't any fun working for someone else, no doubt. But it isn't
necessarily any better exploiting yourself for cash either. Especially
if - as happens more often than not - one slowly restricts one's
imagination so as to pander to what is marketable. In this way, EVERYONE
is cheated. Many people choose to work for others, precisely s they
don't have to go through this process, selling their dreams off for
grocery money. Some can weather this fine line, but - David - I've seen
your work, and you can't. It is strictly imitative of Giger, but far
less proficient. Technique is an over-rated part of imaginative
creation, but - IF you choose to parrot a form of art which DEPENDS upon
a polished sheen and ornateness to "awe" the viewer - and THEN show that
your "hand" is inferior to the demands, you've got a problem. No one
with any knowledge of the world could look at your art without INSTANTLY
thinking "it's like Giger but not nearly as good" and that is a problem
for you. So - in selling your art - you are most likely marketing what
are essentially cheaper versions of Giger art to people who can';t
afford the real thing. I think this is an odious position to be in, and
although I don't begrudge you your livelihood, I do think your claim to
be a surrealist artist is entirely a false one, because you've obviously
bent your imagination toward mere imitation and the demands of a
degraded audience expectation.
And I seriously cannot see how changing the world for our children
undermines their free will. If a house were burning down and you decided
to "change it" by putting out the fire, how would this impinge upon the
children's exercise of free cognition?
Dale
david anthony magitis
behind it?
The thought process?
Anyone else have any comments?
Brandon Freels
If you want to give your children freedom, you're going to have to
change the world first.
Nik Maack
Dale Houstman wrote:
> It isn't any fun working for someone else, no doubt.
Why are you talking about this like it's all theoretical when you DO in
fact work for someone else, and can presumably tell us what it's like
for you?
My new job involves a lot of running around, filing stuff, ordering
files back from storage, and checking out files to employees, tracking
down files. It's dull. My "supervisor" keeps watch over more staff
than she can handle. I don't think she has a very good grasp of what it
is we do in our section of the world. Then again, she's watching over
more employees than she really should be. We hardly ever see her, as
her office is housed in another building.
My coworkers and I -- the only reason we do our jobs is for the money.
We state this out loud now and then. The paycheck is not bad, plus we
get benefits. We work hard, and we do our jobs well, but we try not to
take it all too seriously. Because what we do, for the most part, is
utterly insignificant.
There are mornings when I wake up and think, "I will be spending the
next 8 hours at work," and I feel this immense weight on me. I can move
around, but it feels like there are iron balls chained to my ankles.
And to know my coworkers have been working for the Canadian government
for DECADES scares me. They're all counting down the years to retirement.
I don't want to be there that long. But it would be so easy to fall
into that groove. The money is good. The work, while somewhat
overwhelming in volume, isn't that difficult. I could easily fall into
this groove and never get out, just because the money will pay for the
things I need -- food and rent and paint and webhosts and all that.
> But it isn't
> necessarily any better exploiting yourself for cash either. Especially
> if - as happens more often than not - one slowly restricts one's
> imagination so as to pander to what is marketable.
Isn't it better to exploit yourself than to let someone else do it for you?
More importantly -- why don't you talk about what your life is actually
like, instead of spewing all this theoretical drivel like you always do?
Nik
Kwigd144
prisoners(fellow surrealists) have been talking about since the mid 1990's.
Dale refuses to accept the fact that an Artist like David A.Magitis excersises
free cognition and is a true surrealist, that so many other "surrealists" mock
and insult. Try talking to the man one on one and see exactly what I am saying,
instead of the constant insults like "white noise" etc. Barrett has told me
that your stance on Insults and Confrontation is a Necessary part of the
Surrealist Activity, but there always must be results, and I see no results
provided by you, Dale. I might be wrong as in regards to your membership
within Barrett's Group and your writings in Blue Feathers that only reach the
audience of Blue Feathers(which is a very good publication,no bullshit!). Is
there any Surrealist alive today who will Challenge Pierre Petiot's Paper,
"SURREALISM and the MACHINE"? That is the problem that I see and the one David
and Myself and others prove to Fight the Machine by exercising our free
cognition and will! A man chooses to think free and desires to Destroy Logic
and You call him a Giger Toad! Pierre Petiot's,"Surrealism and the Machine" is
the exact thought process that I strive to fight against and I will tell you
why! "The Machine let us do and undo anything, and forgives everything
almost". "The efficiency of a mechanism has always been the measure and proof
that our thoughts and dreams are part of a reality, a proof that they belong to
the world and are true powers in it." by Pierre Petiot from,"Surrealism and the
Machine". Dale/Barrett/Brandon/Zazie/Pierre/Ribitch/Torch and others, If there
is not One among you who can tell me, What The Purpose of The Machine has to do
with Surrealism, then we are all doomed and so is our movement! The Machine
should never be in the same sentence, let alone, a paper discussing Surrealism,
Yet all of you do not speak out against this and where do we go then? Pierre
does clearly state his postion in Surrealism when he writes a paper such as
this one. We are Doomed if we follow the Mindset of the Mechanism that Pierre
talks about and Dale insists on mocking David Magitis who is as far from any
machine or mechanism that I know. Surrealism is Not Logic and Who are you to
Enforce your Stance on making sense. I refuse to make sense, and I despise the
machine and I despise the distrust that you all have of others. The Gated
Community is the Theory that exists in such a paper as this and as I said to
Stuart Inman, Destroy all Logic! Remember, I do not name myself after any of
the writings of Raymond Quenan!!! I am Proud to be silly and crazy and very
foolish at times. I take delight in fucking with the people that Refuse to
Destroy Logic! I take such delight in getting fired from jobs! I want to piss
you off and everybody and it does work, "walk over your body"! Yes, Dale, You
can walk over my Dead body anytime, as long as I lead you to Surrealism, which
is what you and all the others mentioned above have kept locked away as a
Throttle Position Sensor from the rest of world and I will continue to post my
views and I welcome your attacks and I retract my begging you to stop, for I
refuse to be part of the Machine that Pierre has created with this paper,
"Surrealism and the Machine"! Our Minds are not gears, nor should operate as
gears, or even in a,"Mechanical Concept", Remeber Hegel! Please read Richet,it
will do you some good! Keith Wigdor The Lunatic!
Dale Houstman
Kwigd144 wrote:
> The Problem is always inside the mindset like the lice that our fellow
> prisoners(fellow surrealists) have been talking about since the mid 1990's.
> Dale refuses to accept the fact that an Artist like David A.Magitis excersises
> free cognition and is a true surrealist,
I've seen a lot of David's work: it is basically pure Giger but lacking
the only "value" Giger has, precise and slick technique. I'm not a big
proponent of mere technique, but if you imitate a style that screams it,
any shortfall will only make people thing "it's Giger, but it's not
nearly as good." In essence, he is providing a "service": a discount
version of Giger for those too poor to buy the real thing. I admit it's
a niche market, but it hardly qualifies David as an exerciser of free
cognition, and it certainly doesn't qualify him as a "true surrealist."
David was a screaming proponent of censorship in the last few months,
and that - alone - disqualfies him from a movement that abhores ANY
reprassion. This is just an obervable. It requires no great
"archaeological" dig and no intellectual athletics: He is FOR censorship
(a proveable assertion) and thus cannot realistically appoint himself to
a movement that abhors censorship.
>that so many other "surrealists" mock and insult. Try talking to the man one on one and see exactly what I am saying,
This from a man who started a reasonable (if not quite informed)
conversation with me, and when I merely disputed one of his statements
(without ANY personal content) he cursed me in his "capital" letters
whih appear to be the replacemnt act for his mind. Keith, you must learn
to investigate the content of your own communication before thinking ALL
problems of conversation lie in the other person. Barrett and I HAVE
discussed my approach, and he has told me of your communications. I have
every reason not to trust what you sau after your abymal and juvenile
performance before, and you're either going to have to re-investigate
your inability to debate without exploding into a glandular mist, OR you
are simply going to have to accept the fact that I find you to be a
reprobate. That's your choice.
> instead of the constant insults like "white noise" etc.
As opposed to your oh-so-eloquent "FUCK YOU"s?
> Barrett has told me
> that your stance on Insults and Confrontation is a Necessary part of the
> Surrealist Activity, but there always must be results, and I see no results
> provided by you, Dale.
What results are you asking to see? This sounds very utilitarian to me,
and utilitarianism is another enemy that surrealists have consistently
fought to succumb.
> I might be wrong as in regards to your membership
> within Barrett's Group and your writings in Blue Feathers that only reach the
> audience of Blue Feathers(which is a very good publication,no bullshit!). Is
> there any Surrealist alive today who will Challenge Pierre Petiot's Paper,
> "SURREALISM and the MACHINE"? That is the problem that I see and the one David
> and Myself and others prove to Fight the Machine by exercising our free
> cognition and will! A man chooses to think free and desires to Destroy Logic
> and You call him a Giger Toad!
I didn't call him a Giger Toad, but - after looking at his work - I will
say - without hesitation - that his work is purely sub-par Gigerisms. It
is obvious to anyone who approaches it not already blinded by a desire
to be "impressed." The work is NOT impressive, nor is it particularly
"surrealist" BUT the main problem here is that you and David and others
continuously make the SAME central error: you assume surrealism can be
defined by its art, and that art - by itself - is surrealist IF it is
only "odd." This is unacceptable
>Pierre Petiot's,"Surrealism and the Machine" is
> the exact thought process that I strive to fight against and I will tell you
> why! "The Machine let us do and undo anything, and forgives everything
> almost". "The efficiency of a mechanism has always been the measure and proof
> that our thoughts and dreams are part of a reality, a proof that they belong to
> the world and are true powers in it." by Pierre Petiot from,"Surrealism and the
> Machine". Dale/Barrett/Brandon/Zazie/Pierre/Ribitch/Torch and others, If there
> is not One among you who can tell me, What The Purpose of The Machine has to do
> with Surrealism, then we are all doomed and so is our movement! The Machine
> should never be in the same sentence, let alone, a paper discussing Surrealism,
But why? Technology has always been an extension of human activity and
imaginatiopn, from the earliest cuneiform instruments up to the machine
you are using to post your messages? Surrealism did not shy away from
considering ALL avenues of imaginative pursuit.
> Yet all of you do not speak out against this and where do we go then? Pierre
> does clearly state his postion in Surrealism when he writes a paper such as
> this one. We are Doomed if we follow the Mindset of the Mechanism that Pierre
> talks about and Dale insists on mocking David Magitis who is as far from any
> machine or mechanism that I know.
But he is veyr much like a bad photocopier in a Giger studio.
Instruments can be used in many different ways, and an artist's brush is
merely another form of technology, and are paints. Maybe you are
suggesting we make all our creations with just piss and shit smeared on
the ground by our hands? That might even be interesting, because it is
not the technology IN ITSELF that creates the "merely" mechanical.
Surrealists were NOT Luddites.
>Surrealism is Not Logic and Who are you to
> Enforce your Stance on making sense. I refuse to make sense, and I despise the
> machine and I despise the distrust that you all have of others.
Then why do you use a computer? Doesn't your disgust make that impossible?
>The Gated
> Community is the Theory that exists in such a paper as this and as I said to
> Stuart Inman, Destroy all Logic! Remember, I do not name myself after any of
> the writings of Raymond Quenan!!! I am Proud to be silly and crazy and very
> foolish at times. I take delight in fucking with the people that Refuse to
> Destroy Logic!
How logical of you. It is almost a given that those who proclaim the
loudest to be "anti-logical" are among the most conventional thinkers.
Logic is just another technology of more or less interesting design, and
- incidentally - you couldn't compose a sentence without it.
>I take such delight in getting fired from jobs! I want to piss
> you off and everybody and it does work, "walk over your body"! Yes, Dale, You
> can walk over my Dead body anytime, as long as I lead you to Surrealism, which
> is what you and all the others mentioned above have kept locked away as a
> Throttle Position Sensor from the rest of world and I will continue to post my
> views and I welcome your attacks and I retract my begging you to stop, for I
> refuse to be part of the Machine that Pierre has created with this paper,
> "Surrealism and the Machine"! Our Minds are not gears, nor should operate as
> gears, or even in a,"Mechanical Concept", Remeber Hegel! Please read Richet,it
> will do you some good! Keith Wigdor The Lunatic!
You're not a lunatic - that would be interesting. You are a rather
common presence on Usenet: the raving egotist who proclaims himself this
or that and refuses to ever grow beyond it.
You can never lead me (or anyone) to surrealism, because you don't know
where it lies. It will alwaysd - it seems - be just beyond your senses,
because you refuse to comprehend even its simplest assumptions, and you
blame and curse all those who simply remind you of this. And then your
little feelings get hurt and you spew out lies.
You sound like a Machine to me.
dmh
squid777
does not mean that the
surrealist game is the ultimate in thought programming. There are many other
games that are
equally gratifying. H.R Giger was not a surrealist (or any of his clones)) .
He might of been
surrealist in the 'biomechanical'; in his use of greys, but he definately was
not a surrealist. I
would consider Giger a Fantastic Realist. But who cares. Alt.surrealism is
defined within
certain parameters like a game. Nowsurreal is not surrealism anymore than
smooth jazz is
pure jazz. The American society was founded on libertarianism and will not
allow for one group
to dominate. Follow your own myth. There is very little truely revolutionary
art out there.
Surrealism was very original overall and I could see that Lautremont was its
granddaddy and
so was Hericlitus (typo).There are many 'games' out there. Futurism invented
the art of
noises, a very revolutionary concept that much of todays progresive music
borrows from.
Everything is mutating and changing. Past is present and future is now.
This is only my opinion
Kwigd144
participants in the game. The Collective Thought is Outside of the Parameters
and can Never be contained within the parameters of the game. The Collective
Thought can also be the Imagination and the Imagination can be the Collective
Thought. Parameters are like cylinders in an engine, only to Serve the Purpose
of Combustion, once that happens, the engine will produce force. The
Imagination (or Collective Thought) should never be contained within parameters
or even the game. Surrealist Games are open, they are open to chance and chaos,
the unknown. There is no containment of purpose either for the imagination goes
past the human. Pierre's,"Surrealism and the Machine" needs to be addressed by
all Surrealists due to the problems of Machine as Dominate in the Heirarchy of
his introduction and conceptualiztion of the machine in Surrealism. Please no
references to Duchamp or the DaDa either on this, it will only Prove My Point!
barrett john erickson
"Kwigd144" <kwig...@aol.com> wrote in message
news:20020915110054...@mb-cv.aol.com...
> The Problem is always inside the mindset like the lice that our fellow
> prisoners(fellow surrealists) have been talking about since the mid
1990's.
?
> Dale refuses to accept the fact that an Artist like David A.Magitis
excersises
> free cognition and is a true surrealist, that so many other "surrealists"
mock
> and insult.
i have no problem accepting the fact that an "artist" like Magitis exercises
free cognition. the point made by Dale, however, is that the exercises
Magitis performs fail to properly tone the body of his work, and that --
more to the point -- Magitis shows himself in forum posts as something quite
other than a surrealist, while claiming to be one.
if the only evidence we had was his elitist exhaltation of aesthetic
prostitution combined with a denegration of the working-class, this point
would be well made.
so is it necessary to remind you of the statements he has made in favor of
censorship?
> Try talking to the man one on one and see exactly what I am saying,
> instead of the constant insults like "white noise" etc. Barrett has told
me
> that your stance on Insults and Confrontation is a Necessary part of the
> Surrealist Activity, but there always must be results, and I see no
results
> provided by you, Dale.
the dialectic of challenge is critical to the vitality of any movement. but
for that dialectic to be constructive requires that the challenge be
directly engaged by the person challenged on the same ground it was made,
rather than trying to shift the field of play to the way it was made.
i think Dale is happy to play on any field you chose.
> I might be wrong as in regards to your membership
> within Barrett's Group
it's only "my group" in the sense that i am an active participant.
> and your writings in Blue Feathers that only reach the
> audience of Blue Feathers
well, how could it be otherwise?
> (which is a very good publication,no bullshit!). Is
> there any Surrealist alive today who will Challenge Pierre Petiot's Paper,
> "SURREALISM and the MACHINE"?
certainly not me! i think it's a brilliant effort to awaken surrealists to
the potential (both "good" and "bad") of computers and the internet.
> That is the problem that I see and the one David
> and Myself and others prove to Fight the Machine by exercising our free
> cognition and will!
i think you've misunderstood Pierre.
> A man chooses to think free and desires to Destroy Logic
> and You call him a Giger Toad!
if Magitis is a Geiger Toad it isn't because he thinks free and desires to
destroy logic, its because his statements show him coping an elitist
attitude about his ability/choice to sell Geiger clones -- rather than, say,
run a printing press, or explore his desires in some way that acutally
furthers the surrealist project rather than misrepresents it.
> Pierre Petiot's,"Surrealism and the Machine" is
> the exact thought process that I strive to fight against and I will tell
you
> why! "The Machine let us do and undo anything, and forgives everything
> almost". "The efficiency of a mechanism has always been the measure and
proof
> that our thoughts and dreams are part of a reality, a proof that they
belong to
> the world and are true powers in it." by Pierre Petiot from,"Surrealism
and the
> Machine". Dale/Barrett/Brandon/Zazie/Pierre/Ribitch/Torch and others, If
there
> is not One among you who can tell me, What The Purpose of The Machine has
to do
> with Surrealism, then we are all doomed and so is our movement!
Pierre has tried to do just that.
bear in mind that Pierre is French and some words carry slightly if not
greatly different connotations in French than they do in English.
Pierre's purpose in this text is to get us to start thinking of the role of
various processes of utility throughout our evolutionary history, and to
begin thinking about the way one of them in particular -- computers -- are
helping to shape us right now.
certainly surrealists should be very interested in this. i would say they
should be far more interested in this process than in airbrushed fantasies
of alien women.
> The Machine
> should never be in the same sentence, let alone, a paper discussing
Surrealism,
> Yet all of you do not speak out against this and where do we go then?
Pierre
> does clearly state his postion in Surrealism when he writes a paper such
as
> this one.
he does indeed! and his position is that surrealism must be regain movement
and that surrealists must be aware of every aspect of their lives, and that
all surrealists should be concerned about what effect such a significant
element in our daily lives as computers is having on us, and furthermore
that surrealism should be actively intervening in that area so as to assure
it isn't abandoned to those who will only further falsify the experience for
utilitarian purposes (i.e., the pursuit of profit and POWER).
> We are Doomed if we follow the Mindset of the Mechanism that Pierre
> talks about and Dale insists on mocking David Magitis who is as far from
any
> machine or mechanism that I know. Surrealism is Not Logic and Who are you
to
> Enforce your Stance on making sense. I refuse to make sense, and I despise
the
> machine and I despise the distrust that you all have of others.
Pierre isn't suggesting a "mindset of mechanism".
surrealism is about enhancing reality thru the integration of the
imagination. that is precisely what Pierre's paper was about.
as for destroying logic...
if you refuse to think of it as a set of rules, logic is nothing more than
an understanding of how humans construct arguments and try to convince each
other to recognize certain aspects of their shared reality. there's nothing
anti-surrealist about logic, and there is nothing surrealist about logic.
it is utilitarian, a bit of useful knowledge, that's all, certainly not a
goal -- for preservation or destruction.
logic only needs to be recognized for what it is: a tool, like any other
tool, like a brush or pen or computer. and "utilitarian" processes or
objects can only be judged relative to the use to which they are put.
the danger is to be found precisely among those who place value on such
tools, positive or negative.
> The Gated
> Community is the Theory that exists in such a paper as this and as
you're simply wrong here. Pierre is making the case that surrealists
shouldn't be ignoring technology ("machine"), and certainly not the most
significant technology of our time.
> I said to
> Stuart Inman, Destroy all Logic! Remember, I do not name myself after any
of
> the writings of Raymond Quenan!!! I am Proud to be silly and crazy and
very
> foolish at times. I take delight in fucking with the people that Refuse to
> Destroy Logic!
this attitude sounds more Dada than surrealist. not that there's anything
wrong with that.
> I take such delight in getting fired from jobs! I want to piss
> you off and everybody and it does work, "walk over your body"!
is pissing everyone off your goal (dada), or is enhancing reality your goal
(surrealist)? one is individualist, the other collaborative. and yes they
are, because of that, incompatible.
> Yes, Dale, You
> can walk over my Dead body anytime, as long as I lead you to Surrealism,
which
Dale's already there.
but put this comment with your description of Magitis as a "true surrealist"
and it appears that you have a ways to go before you can recognize one when
you see one.
of course there's always a chance that you have some evidence relative to
Magitis to present that we don't know, and if so i encourage you to offer
it.
> is what you and all the others mentioned above have kept locked away as a
> Throttle Position Sensor from the rest of world and I will continue to
post my
> views and I welcome your attacks and I retract my begging you to stop, for
I
> refuse to be part of the Machine that Pierre has created with this paper,
> "Surrealism and the Machine"! Our Minds are not gears, nor should operate
as
> gears, or even in a,"Mechanical Concept", Remeber Hegel! Please read
Richet,it
> will do you some good! Keith Wigdor The Lunatic!
again, you misunderstand Pierre.
-- barrett
BLUE FEATHERS se2 (The New World Odor) is now available
(BF#4 will be available in July02)
http://www.MagneticFields.org/blue/
bar...@MagneticFields.org
http://www.MagneticFields.org/
surrealists in minnesota
Sur...@MagneticFields.org
==============================================
"Everything tends to make us believe that there exists a
certain point of the mind at which life and death, the real and
the imagined, past and future, the communicable and the
incommunicable, high and low, cease to be perceived as
contradictions."
...André Breton
==============================================
Dale Houstman
you may - of course - continue on in this irrelevant fashion.
But your comments only further clarify your misunderstanding of Pierre's
text, and of surrealism in general.
And it would further be helpful if you would not attempt to "pre-limit"
the discussion's scope by telling us what NOT to address. It is not
helpful. Duchamp - in regards to a discussion about a surrealist stance
as to technology - would be invaluable, as would Man Ray, and possibly
even Now Surreal's poster boy Dali, as he made no bones about his desire
to "keep up" with all the latest gadgets (atom bombs, lasers, and
holograms: all machinery). But the central point is that you seem unable
to "engage" with others in a discussion, and continuously misunderstand
the actual content of a text because you are too impatient to rush on to
a new irrelevancy.
How does (precisely) the imagination go "beyond the human" and where -
then - is it to be located?
Why are you so eager to use mechanical metaphors if you have a disgust
of machinery?
Why - if you have a disgust of machinery - are you using a computer:
surely THE example of machinery for this age?
And - finally - since you are self-exiled (at the moment) from the
greater surrealist community, HOW do you know Pierre's text is NOT being
discussed,or about to be discussed? You wouldn't know, and that's a
fact. In fact, I was discussing it with him (in general terms) not that
long ago, and hoping we might further precisely that discussion, as part
of a large re-investigation of all surrealist stances and assumptions
and definitions. So you see even your simplest ideas are false.
I DO suggest - for your own health - that you stop engaging so regularly
with these disgusting Machines, until you can come to grips with the
contradictions that sleep at the core of your rather loosely strung
together blobs of thought.
dmh
barrett john erickson
> [...]
> Imagination (or Collective Thought) should never be contained within
parameters
you're gonna have to explain your use of the term "Collective Thought"...
> [...]
> There is no containment of purpose either for the imagination goes past
the human.
can't agree with that, but maybe you want to elaborate? seems to me that
the imagination is quite specifically human as we understand it. i would
argue that it is our most evolved sense.
> Pierre's,"Surrealism and the Machine" needs to be addressed by
> all Surrealists due to the problems of Machine as Dominate in the
Heirarchy of
> his introduction and conceptualiztion of the machine in Surrealism.
well i certainly agree that Pierre's text should be addressed by all
surrealists. but again, you've misunderstood him.
squid777
movement.
An imaginary machine or a patamachine."(reference:'Le Macchine Celibi').
What is the 'Collective Thought'?
"books, telephones, and fax machines were created by the memes for their own
replication"
(from 'The Meme Machine")
Chance and Chaos is another 'game' or a flip side of an opposite.
. Matta's article in Minotaur about this surrealist house might be an example of
the state
of mind one might have in living within the parameters of perpetual
chance and chaos (like being on lsd perhaps). Surrealism says there is no
separation
between body and mind. It may in fact be 'revolutionary' to think contrary. The
mind
may in fact be both a connected and seperate. (i take Jane Roberts 'SETH' as an
example)
even if her books are totally wrong, the concept is interesting and who knows. So
yes
surrealism is operating under parameters like a machine. Chance and chaos is beyond
human and humans are limited.
I like your response and of course I'm open to the thought that I may be wrong. My
mind is limited and there are minds far greater than mine to comprehend all this.
I also believe that the machine will play an ever increasing role in the arts via
holography; computers(maybe to make painting impotent). If someday humans transcend
the machine it will be through a separation between mind and body and that will be
revolutionary.
I am not implying religion here.
Kwigd144
paper,"Surrealism and The Machine". Dale, Listen, You are clearly wrong and I
will explain. Oh and Barrett, I do understand what he is saying here in this
attempt to embrace Machine. Surrealism is not in any way shape or form, an
Attractor to a Mechanical Concept. That is what he is attempting to lead us
into and both You and Dale have failed to call him on it. Dale, You state You
are a Surrealist, I do not care about the statement analysis and behavior
analysis factors that you keep on focusing on, when you should focus on
Surrealism which you avoid so much. I can argue and debate with you until the
end of time and I will prove you wrong on your blind embrace of others instead
of yourself. The only thing that I and David and others know of you is that you
are part of Barrett's Group and a contributer to Blue Feathers. Here within
alt.surrealism, both Nik and David have asked what you do for a living or
anyhthing solid that all here can relate to besides your empty rhetoric and
insults. I have reacted to not only your attacks but others as well. If you
believe that David Magitis is really a proponent of censorship then you must
believe everything that you see and hear. However, when Direct Questions
regarding Surrealism and Surrealist Theory and Action have been asked to you,
the response was an attack and I attacked right back. Well, Here goes, The
Surrealists that are going to tell me that I have misunderstood Pierre's Paper
are wrong. I do not have to provide insight into Wittengenstien when Pierre has
the Surrealist Duty to Provide WHY, We as Surrealists should embrace and
attract the Machine, which is the Representative Tool that led us into The
Industrial Revolution and all the horrors of WW1 and WW2. I use a computer and
the computer serves me, not Surrealism, do you understand me? Dale and
Barrett(and Pierre), Please read this book or tell me if you read it:
"L`intelligence collective: Pour une anthropologie du cyberspace" or
English:"Collective Intelligence, Mankinds Emerging World In Cyberspace" by
Pierre Levy. I guess that Pierre Petiot has read it, but that is a guess. When
I read the paper by Pierre Petiot, "Surrealism and the Machine", this is what I
get out of the paper. Pierre Petiot places emphasis on the Machine which Could
provide imaginative oppurtunities for Surrealist Exploration when are minds
operate in a Mechanical and Conceptual Framework, this is what I get out of it!
Gentlemen, This Must be Addressed by all Surrealists!!!!!!!!!! Why? The
Machine is a Tool of The Commodity Space, where Contemporary Surrealists (We)
exits in a Knowledge Space! I view Surrealism as the Semiotic of the
Imagination in Knowledge Space where it has the Oppurtunity to Transcend (as
Breton INTENDED!).Pierre Petiot, in his paper,"Surrealism and the Machine",
(remember, Ladies and Gentlemen, this is debate) views Surrealism as the
Semiotic of the Imagination in Commodity Space. That is Exactly what was
proposed in this paper and he must (as his duty as a Surrealist) Clarify His
Position on This! Ladies and Gentlemen, The Machine always exits in Commodity
Space and to propose this just leads us back into the Mindset of Territorial
Distinction that Surrealism should have no part of and You do not listen to
what I have been saying all along! I am not conventional nor logical, do you
understand? Pierre Petiot is Probably the only Surrealist who does understand
me on this, if I have misinterpreted his paper, but it is one that needs to be
addressed on an International Level, just like all of you addressed the
Integrity and Sincerity of NowSurreal UK! Is Surrealism bound INSIDE The
Farabian Tradition?
Kwigd144
all listening to me, yet I see the Evasion! I have EVOLVED to the Stage of
IMMANENCE! You, Dale, Refuse to Break the Manacles of Surrealist Bureaucracy!
Dale wants Surrealism to OPERATE in,"Efficient Cause"!!! Yes, Warden Dale,
Surrealism is Never Going to get to,"FINAL CAUSE" until you LET IT!
david anthony magitis
(1) You could not afford a piece of my art.
(2) You seem to be the only "human being" on this planet to slag of artwork
and as yet not provide any input into any subject matter.
(3) I laugh my bollocks of everytime I read your crase typing and drivel,
you are a hobbyist and a bad tempered critic.
Long live giger toadist and may we prosper at least it comes from within,
imagination not interrogation.
david anthony magitis
you paid any attention to my work?
david anthony magitis
> > There is no containment of purpose either for the imagination goes past
> the human.
>
> can't agree with that, but maybe you want to elaborate? seems to me that
> the imagination is quite specifically human as we understand it. i would
> argue that it is our most evolved sense.
It may be our most evolved sense but in most peoples cases never used. Ever
watched someone die, I mean slow. The brain fires up and places the victim
in a calm trance therefore using all it's imaginary skills just for this
point in time. The human mind is now trapped in an aging design, our thought
exceed what we imagine and we cannot express them whilst trapped in this
shell. Perhaps our best thoughts are when we are dying.
Kwigd144
host or Mind/Body Paradigm. The Imagination doesn't even exist in the
Human-Sense but in the Phenomena.David, The Imagination is the Indeterminate
Future! We exist in a Phase past the Hegelian System,Concept (Imagination) is
now WHOLE MOVEMENT instead of SELF MOVEMENT. For Example the collaboration of
Xenalasia, She Evolved in our Collective Sur-reality state of Whole Movement,
and David, The Possibilities are Limitless!!! We no longer exist in the
Commidity Space that our Fellow Surrealists desire to stay in, for We exist in
Knowledge Space which is the HOME that Andre Breton Intended for Surrealism to
Evolve to and We are there! The Dream is Open and Unbounded and that brings us
into Sur-reality, Oh the Possibilities are LIMITLESS!!!!!!
Kwigd144
paper,"Surrealism and the Machine", but you are intentionally forcing a view
that I will not accept. Please Look at the title of the Paper, "Surrealism and
the Machine"! How many times do I have to point out that Surrealism must
destroy all logic and You embrace the machine! Even Dale's sarcastic,"Blobs of
Thought", PROVES his Inability to Understand Surrealism and Practically
Everyhting Breton and All gave us. The more you keep on providing NOTHING but
Empty Rhetoric in your Machine-Embracing Debate, then you keep on showing
everyone here that you are the Pinkerton Screwhead that we should fight all
along. Dale, You are leading us all more and more into Fascism every day, just
read your posts! Anyway, Barrett, Pierre's,"Surrealism and the Machine" DOES
PROPOSE to Embrace Mechanical Concept AND THAT IS DANGEROUS!!!!! Back to
square one all over again: Silvio Berlesconi and George W. Bush both have a
campaign for War with Iraq. There has been no corrective measures to prevent
the Horrors of 9/11 from happening in the first place, you know, when your
business partners in Carlyle Turn on You! Construction of Prisons are the
booming economy and Homeland Security Cream provides us all with the dirty
blanket of propoganda that we don't need! Plus THERE IS NO SOCIAL ACTION, You
do have the link, but there is NO SOCIAL ACTION! You can start with an EVENT,
that will most likeley go to hell due to your INABILITY to Open channels with
all the groups and GET OUT OF THE COMMODITY SPACE! This paper can be one of two
things: A Wake up call to Surrealism or A Predication of your Inability to
Embrace Imagination without the use of a Machine!!!!!
barrett john erickson
> [...]
> If you believe that David Magitis is really a proponent of censorship
> then you must believe everything that you see and hear.
we simply take him at his word. we accept that what he says accurately
reflects what he wants to say. we do no more. is this an error?
if he doesn't mean what he says, he's a liar. but that's not important.
the reality is: he defended -- even embraced -- censorship. that was his
act, taken of his own "free cognition". it doesn't matter if he had is
secret fingers crossed or not. he acted to support censorship. censorship
was supported. censorship was aided, and to the extent anyone mistakes him
for a surrealist, surrealism suffers by his action.
> The
> Surrealists that are going to tell me that I have misunderstood Pierre's
Paper
> are wrong. I do not have to provide insight into Wittengenstien when
Pierre has
> the Surrealist Duty to Provide WHY,
Pierre has offered a text outlining his exploration. you raised some
objections. i answered them from within the context of surrealist theory.
if you have more questions i'll deal with those as well. but the burden
remains with you to show how Pierre's ideas fall outside the scope of
surrealism or run _counter_to_ it's existing trajectories. i remain
unconvinced.
> We as Surrealists should embrace and attract the Machine,
this isn't exactly what was said.
> which is the Representative Tool that led us into The
> Industrial Revolution and all the horrors of WW1 and WW2.
and i'm beginning to see the problem with your analysis: you can't let go
of the habit of thinking of technology as "good" or "evil" -- which is
precisely what Pierre is arguing needs to be done.
tools are not inherently good or evil. they merely _facilitate_ human
action -- "good" or "bad". in doing so, they only convey the value humans
create during their use. Pierre's argument is that by ignoring this
particular tool (the computer) we are abandoning a significant agent of
facilitation to those how would do what we wished not to be done, while
failing to use one of the best means at our hands to achieve what we do want
done.
> I use a computer and the computer serves me, not Surrealism, do you
> understand me?
the computer will serve surrealism if that is the purpose to which you put
it.
> Dale and Barrett(and Pierre), Please read this book or tell me if you read
it:
> "L`intelligence collective: Pour une anthropologie du cyberspace" or
> English:"Collective Intelligence, Mankinds Emerging World In Cyberspace"
by
> Pierre Levy.
why don't you just tell me what it is you want me to learn from it? save us
both some time.
as i pointed out in the other post, if you were refering to Guattari so as
to refute Pierre, either you have misread Pierre, or whoever wrote that
intro to Guattari misunderstood his concept of the machine. but then it
isn't even clear if that was your intent. perhaps you were implying they
were both full of shit? i don't know. it doesn't matter what the problem
with that one is to me, but it does show how slippery such references are if
you expect them to serve as a stand-in for a coherent argument.
so rather than just offer up more things to read, lets deal with the
concepts before us directly.
> I guess that Pierre Petiot has read it, but that is a guess. When
> I read the paper by Pierre Petiot, "Surrealism and the Machine", this is
what I
> get out of the paper. Pierre Petiot places emphasis on the Machine which
Could
> provide imaginative oppurtunities for Surrealist Exploration when are
minds
> operate in a Mechanical and Conceptual Framework, this is what I get out
of it!
all he is saying is that it is a fertile ground for surrealist exploration,
and should not be ignored by surrealists. the human brings the imagination
to it. he is saying it's here, imaginations are using it and should use it,
and surrealists shouldn't abandon it to the kinds of imaginations that gave
us the neutron bomb.
if you want to get into the way i (and Pierre is very close to me on this as
i gained the insight from him) understand the cognitive process, we can do
that. but it isn't an easy subject. for now i'll just say that it _is_
"mechanical" in the sense that its embodied in the physical, emerging from
biological/chemical processes that are still evolving. this cannot be
denied unless one is ready to embrace the superstition of religions. but it
is not the kind of cause/effect stimulus/response kind of mechanical far too
many scientists still envision.
> Gentlemen, This Must be Addressed by all Surrealists!!!!!!!!!! Why? The
> Machine is a Tool of The Commodity Space,
if the machine is the tool of commodity space why are _you_ using it?
Dale asked that but you don't seem to grasp the significance of the
question -- which is this:
tools are simply available for use to whoever is able to and decides to pick
them up and put them to use. tools have no inherent value -- "good" or
"bad". it is the human action -- the use to which the tool is put -- that
is the creator of value.
you seem to argue that the tools of commodity space (by which i assume you
refer to capitalism) are responsible for its abuses? television, radio,
magazines, books, ink, paper, trees... where do we stop?
it's the people that abuse the tools, not the other way around.
> where Contemporary Surrealists (We) exits in a Knowledge Space!
i don't know about you, but i exist in the space of real experience. i see
no reason to start subdividing that property.
> I view Surrealism as the Semiotic of the
> Imagination in Knowledge Space where it has the Oppurtunity to Transcend
(as
> Breton INTENDED!).
the imagination exists in the space of continuous indivisible real
experience as well.
> Pierre Petiot, in his paper,"Surrealism and the Machine",
> (remember, Ladies and Gentlemen, this is debate) views Surrealism as the
> Semiotic of the Imagination in Commodity Space. That is Exactly what was
> proposed in this paper and he must (as his duty as a Surrealist) Clarify
His
> Position on This!
Pierre doesn't divide the space of real experience any more than i do.
> Ladies and Gentlemen, The Machine always exits in Commodity
> Space
i'm afraid you're going to have to explain this division you insist on
making before we can get any further on this point.
> and to propose this just leads us back into the Mindset of Territorial
> Distinction that Surrealism should have no part of and You do not listen
to
> what I have been saying all along!
well, i'm listening, but i hear you laying your arguments out on a false
platform:
there are no subdivisions to the "space" of real experience. there is only
experience.
barrett
barrett john erickson
> What makes me laugh is the point of "imagist" in favour of censorship.
Have
> you paid any attention to my work?
>
when presented with your work as a painter and your work as a participant in
discussion forums, i think the most unambiguous indicator of your sentiments
is in the forums.
you made several very clear statements in nowSurreal's forum. you took a
clear position. are you saying you were lying there?
as i said in another post, it doesn't really matter. your action was that
of supporting censorship when the subject was under heated debate. to say
you didn't really mean it after the fact is irrelevant to the reality of
your action in the matter.
barrett john erickson
> >
> > > There is no containment of purpose either for the imagination goes
past
> > the human.
> >
> > can't agree with that, but maybe you want to elaborate? seems to me
that
> > the imagination is quite specifically human as we understand it. i
would
> > argue that it is our most evolved sense.
>
> It may be our most evolved sense but in most peoples cases never used.
on the contrary, the imagination is in constant use. it"s just ignored or
misdirected most of the time.
barrett
barrett john erickson
i'm beginning to think your talking about some kind of disembodied
non-material Kantian type of "space".
say it ain't so, Keith, say it ain't so.
barrett
Dale Houstman
Brandon,
I am sorry that a frisson of bad feeling has arisen between us. We both
have our understandings of where that rise is located, and I don't think
it is fruitful to attend to it anymore.
But - not to put too fine a point on a dull episode - I suggest we do
what we did before and move on. If it makes any difference, I had just
come off some rather intense involvement with the "pierre/zazie/Leeds"
problem and (possibly) I was a little "hepped up" over it. No matter -
there exists no CRITICAL distance between us as regards the value of
surrealism and its adherents. I hope you might find your way to agreeing
with me on this one point. It is an important one.
So - I apologize (in my way!) and ask you for a sort of truce based upon
the need to address larger problems TOGETHER.
So...
Dale Houstman
That Jerk in Minneapolis
barrett john erickson
> Barrett, You keep on Insisting that I misunderstand Pierre regrading his
> paper,"Surrealism and the Machine", but you are intentionally forcing a
view
> that I will not accept. Please Look at the title of the Paper, "Surrealism
and
> the Machine"!
i've read it. i've talked to both Pierre face to face and in years worth of
e-mails about this very subject. i'm tellin' ya: there's a hole in your
analysis, i'm just not sure where it is yet because i don't have a clear
enough idea of what your trying to say.
> How many times do I have to point out that Surrealism must
> destroy all logic
and i've already offered my response to this statement:
logic, depending on how you use the term, is either an area of study (how we
construct arguments) or a tool (to be applied in arguments). and i've gone
to great lengths to explain my argument that "tools" have no inherent
characteristics that support someone considering them an enemy. i have yet
to hear you offer an argument that supports your assertion that logic needs
to be destroyed as part of a surrealist platform.
a primary point of surrealism is to liberate the imagination and integrate
it into our daily lives. as tools go, logic is one of the better ones to
use when attempting this. does Lautremonts disecting table have any
surrealist significance at all without the implied incongruity provided by
logic derailed?
there! i've just offered you a concrete example of how logic serves
surrealism. there are countless others: the skits of monty python, the
films of Bunuel, all of Duchamp, even the paintings of Dali.
i might even argue that logic is one of surrealism's most essential tools.
so as far as i'm concerned, you can stop saying it now until you give me an
argument that supports your position in opposition to mine.
> and You embrace the machine!
i embrace reality! the machine happens to be part of that.
but again, i have to believe your are thinking of machine in a different way
than Pierre was, or Guattari for that matter.
and beyond that, i don't even see the relevance of it beyond the fact that
Pierre used the term (in a way i wouldn't have).
> Even Dale's sarcastic,"Blobs of
> Thought", PROVES his Inability to Understand Surrealism and Practically
> Everyhting Breton and All gave us.
you keep talking in these generalities, but you haven't offered an
unaswerable critique as yet. as long as i can offer up examples of how
surrealism uses logic, you can't expect to get away with simply saying
"surrealism must destroy logic".
> The more you keep on providing NOTHING but
> Empty Rhetoric in your Machine-Embracing Debate,
i have offered a coherent argument. do the same. tell me what makes you
think the "machine" is out-of-bounds for surrealists?
> then you keep on showing
> everyone here that you are the Pinkerton Screwhead that we should fight
all
> along. Dale, You are leading us all more and more into Fascism every day,
just
> read your posts! Anyway, Barrett, Pierre's,"Surrealism and the Machine"
DOES
> PROPOSE to Embrace Mechanical Concept AND THAT IS DANGEROUS!!!!!
offer an argument specific to "machine". tell me how you're using the term
and what it means to you. then tell me why you think surrealists need to
shun it. this is simple dialog.
don't keep telling me it's "dangerous" if your not going to tell me why (how
helpful is that?).
> Back to
> square one all over again: Silvio Berlesconi and George W. Bush both have
a
> campaign for War with Iraq. There has been no corrective measures to
prevent
> the Horrors of 9/11 from happening in the first place, you know, when your
> business partners in Carlyle Turn on You! Construction of Prisons are the
> booming economy and Homeland Security Cream provides us all with the dirty
> blanket of propoganda that we don't need! Plus THERE IS NO SOCIAL ACTION,
You
> do have the link, but there is NO SOCIAL ACTION! You can start with an
EVENT,
> that will most likeley go to hell due to your INABILITY to Open channels
with
> all the groups and GET OUT OF THE COMMODITY SPACE! This paper can be one
of two
> things: A Wake up call to Surrealism or A Predication of your Inability to
> Embrace Imagination without the use of a Machine!!!!!
and what does any of that have to do with "machine" except as you throw it
in at the last sentence?
i still have no idea what you mean when you say machine but i'm pretty
certain it isn't the same thing Pierre meant. Pierre did a decent job of
defining his usage. not a usage i'd take on myself, but knowing how he was
using it, i have no problem with his text. Guattari apparently defined
machine very similarly, yet you alluded to him when arguing against Pierre.
in this paragraph i suspect you may be using the word to substitute for what
the situationists called "the spectacle".
you can't expect me to agree with you until i know what your actually saying
so we can determine a common language from which to examine our positions.
Dale Houstman
Barrett has been very patient with you, but I think you aren't worth it.
You DO misunderstand Pierre's paper, and Barrett has explained in
detail the HOW and WHY. You can accept that or not, but your attitude
towards it does not change the fact that you have misread the text.
You can point out forever that surrealism MUST destroy all logic, but -
without some cogent thought behind your words, your explanation remains
a mere rant. You don't appear to quite know what logic is, but if you
want to see that such a tool can be used quite surrealistically, just
read some of Lewis Carroll's syllogisms. They are quite instructive as
to how logic can be used in any manner the dreamer wishes to use it, and
it is nowhere near being the cartoonishly insidious Machine Monster you
are rather lamely trying to reify with a tepid spell.
It seems you think that 9/11 occurred because airplanes are evil! A
highly amusing idea for a bad sitcom, but not quite up to the level of
human intellectual discourse, I'm afraid.
Again: why are you using a computer? And - since you are opposed to
machines/technology in the all-in-all, you should deny yourself the
baleful horror of the pencil and the pen (and even the paper I'm
afraid). It is ridiculous to reject technology out of hand, but
especially so when you are utilizing it. Or do you - like censors -
believe you can view pornography without the "bad" effects it MUST have
on others? An elitist - and untenable - position.
Men dreamed up technologies out of a desire to extend man's senses and
presence in the world. Do machines do "bad things." No! Can machines be
used to do "bad things." Yes! There is no evil cult of Machines, and -
don't forget - a great many "bad things" can be done with a rock and
bad attitude. Machines are just tools. This is the thrust of Pierre's
text (and it is obvious: your continuousdly missing that says too much
about your ability to read, or - at least - to get past your own
pre-judgements), and it is the thrust of human existence. You don't like
it: fine! Go live in a mulberry bush and pick your teeth with a rose
thorn for all I care. At least then you would be in line with your own
prejudice in this matter, and appear to be less of a manic hypocrite.
By the way: capitalizing vague ideas doesn't make them more important or
more valid.
You should slow down your fevered blindness to other's words, and try to
respond to points made as if you were a human, instead of a Drama
Machine. you might actually get somewhere that way. Although - as I said
in so many words - I find you to be an unbearable twit.
I'd rather spend an evening with a Machine than with you. At least they
know when to "shut up and just listen."
As for my "leading" you all into Fascism more every day: please explain
(without your histrionic hysteria, if you can) exactly how you drew this
conclusion, and - if you could - provide proof that I am leading anyone
anywhere.
dmh
Kwigd144
Zazie/Pierre/Leeds Group problem??? Please this is NEWS,MAN!!! Oh, WOW, Dale,
You got the dirt on this and it is your duty as a Surrealist to fill us all in!
Please, I really desire to know what happened? Brandon is upset with you, Why
is Brandon upset with you and what has happened?
barrett john erickson
> Dale, What happened between You and Brandon Freels??? What is this
> Zazie/Pierre/Leeds Group problem??? Please this is NEWS,MAN!!! Oh, WOW,
Dale,
> You got the dirt on this and it is your duty as a Surrealist to fill us
all in!
you seem to mistake being a surrealist with being a back fence gossip.
barrett
Dale Houstman
I'm rather sorry I accidentally posted a private message.
The issue between Brandon and myself is a minor one, having to do with a
debate over an emotional subject, and I hope to resolve it soon, as I
have done before.
And I only hope I can be forgiven for the accident.
Sheesh...
dmh
>
Kwigd144
poop! Machines are people too!!!!!
Brandon Freels
I'm sorry I overreacted. You have a way of getting under my skin.
Also, I've become somewhat bewildered by the intense activity on the
list. Over the past two weeks I've spent far too much time on the
computer. I agree with the Leeds group's statement that a surrealist's
"life is in the streets, around the corner or on the other side of the
bridge, not sitting passively in front of a computer screen, where
adventure and revolt can so easily be reduced to mirages" (Fool's
Gold). I want my life back. I'm planning on having my personal
internet connection terminated around late October. Perhaps then, when
my participation is hampered by roadblocks (i.e. Library computers),
I'll be able to join the list again.
Keith,
The scoop: As things go, Dale and I had a disagreement regarding how
to deal with the current mistake made by the Leeds group of
associating Zazie with that shithole NowSurreal. Obviously every
surrealist that knows Zazie is up in arms about the mistake, and is
doing all they can to clear her name of such an infraction. Luckly her
reputation has not been eternally damaged.
Oh, and just by chance, Keith, your name came up at the last Portland
Surrealist Group meeting. Myself and Shibek both proposed the idea
that you might be mildly retarded. Seriously Keith, if you do have any
mental problems (due to birth defects, drugs, etc) I think it would be
best that you inform us. Seriously.
---BJF
Kwigd144
AM RETARDED! Back in the mid 1980's I really set off my supervisor at the U.S.
Post Office, I almost got him fired from his job, He was SCREAMING at me, "YOU
FUCKING RETARD, WHAT ARE YOU FUCKING RETARDED???!!!!" Brandon, I cannot TELL
you what I did due to the actions having to do with the U.S. Government, But HE
WAS SMOKING PISSED! I tought it was the FUNNIEST SHIT THAT I HAVE EVER DID and
YES, I AM RETARDED!!!!!!! Oh, Brandon, To be discussed in the Portland Group
is an Honor and I demand it SPREAD TO ALL THE GROUPS, YOU HAVE MY ETERNAL
BLESSING!!!!! Hahahahahahahahaha! This is truly fucking wild! Man, I am
amazing! Oh, Brandon, I still want the scoop on HOW ZAZIE AND LEEDS MADE THE
BOO-BOO???!!! Hahahahaha, I want Official Membership in all the groups, NO
BULLSHIT! Brandon, if it is my one mission in life, I really would love to meet
you in person! Goddammit! WHERE DO I GET YOUR FUCKING BOOK???!!! I want to
read it and moo moo lop dumaine ching ching!
Dale Houstman
Brandon Freels wrote:
> Dale,
>
> I'm sorry I overreacted. You have a way of getting under my skin.
You can rest easy in the knowledge that you are NOT alone!
I would be interested. It would certainly explain a lot of his
incapabilties.
But - as one can see by his "divorce" question (by which I actually
think he could shock me: A DIVORCE for pete's sake: what a reprobate!) -
Keith is better at asking irrelevant questions than he is at answering
relevant ones. So I don't think we can expect much from that dirty
corner of the barn.
dmh