Date: 20 Jun 97 10:13:04 EDT
From: "Jennifer  M. de Coste" <76171.535-AT-CompuServe.COM>
Subject: completeness


Edward,

	You are right to be wary of any notion of a 'complete reality.'  The sur-
in surreality apparently is best translated as over-."  It has been suggested
many a time by some academics that surrealism sought exclusively (or ultimately)
for an 'absolute,' which thus defined surrealism in terms of a 'higher reality.'
I disagree with this assumption.  The notion of completeness does, however,
struggle - but I would welcome such a struggle.  For completeness here refers to
the transitory nature of life itself.  Surrealism is first and foremost 'of the
lived world.'  Does this explanation 'cry out for guardians?'  I have for quite
some time made the subtle yet crucial distinction between Surrealism and
surrealism.  I would ask, initially, if you acknowledge such a distinction, and
why or why not.  One insight you gave was the phenomenal circumstance presented
by studying Surrealism in universities and institutions.

Thank you for the dialogue.

Michael Szekely