From: INMAN J S <S.Inman-AT-greenwich.ac.uk>
Date: Mon, 30 Jun 1997 13:12:19 GMT
Subject: Re: ????dumbfounded object


>What is the point of this?  I wonder...
 Something I have been wondering about as I scan this dreary 
conversation. 

> >No God-free zone here? Not even god-free?

Everywhere is always a god-free zone.

> why search for a god-free zone?  A carefully circumscribed area in which 
> one can be "free" is not what Surrealism is about. And it is freedom 
> that you are talking about, right?  Your own "personal freedom"?  
 See above.
 
> >Sade had the good sense to interrupt--that is, punctuate--his
> >philosophical dialogues with scenes of vigorous fucking.
> >And vice versa: where is the fucking?
> 
> You want freedom to "fuck," isn't that right, Mr. Beneke?  Your "query" 
> says as much.  Or perhaps you're looking for a hole?  Sade was no 
> "philosopher," by the way, regardless of what some "surrealists" might 
> have said... unless you want to call him an "excrement philosopher." 

Surrealists with quotation marks? Who do you mean? Also, by denying 
that Sade was a philosopher is this a denigration of the man, this is 
ambiguous. Certainly the recent mailings on this list make me want to 
say fuck....
 
> >My first and last request to the rest of you (not you yammerers--you 
> know
> >who you are and we have NOTHING to 'discuss')
> 
> The sole "yammerer," I assume, would be I, Edward Moore -- the one who 
> used the metaphor "godhead," along with loads of religous metaphor and 
> imagery in his writings (and, incidentally, the one who was foolish 
> enough to email some notes in the vein of "Soul and Body Two" to Mr. 
> Beneke).  It takes a certain amount of "courage," in a sense, to immerse 
> oneself in an abandoned realm of knowledge and idea, a realm now so 
> universally shunned by "intellectuals" as the realm of religion.  One 
> can only break free of the influence of something by immersing oneself 
> in it, completely -- and then, after mastering it, rejecting it by 
> rigorous interpretation.  I will argue that we are still very much under 
> the influence of religious thought; and by trying to find a "zone" that 
> is free of religion, you are merely duplicating the movement of religion 
> itself -- that is, hiding within a carefully circumscribed and defended 
> territory.  Jacques Derrida identified this problem in his critique of 
> Western Metaphysics, and his discussions of _bricolage_.

 Well, if you want to discuss religion, please do. But that has 
nothing to do with Surrealism. Has Jacques Derrida identified any 
problems? I was under the impression that perhaps he was a problem, 
in as much as one might pay any attention to him.
  
> I suggest, Mr. Beneke, a widening of your field of vision.  You are 
> right, there is nothing to discuss -- at least for the time being.

Perhaps Chris was trying to make us think that Surrealism would be a 
good thing to discuss on this surrealist list rather than this flabby 
philosophising. I get the impression that Edward Moore is capable of rather 
better than he has given here, I would like to see something that 
gets down to the nitty gritty. I have found so much of this 
irrelevant in the extreme that I have ceased reading it. Which means 
that I have probably missed the only good bits.

As a founding member of this discussion group I often feel that I 
have a special responsibility for it, along with Pierre, Barratt etc. 
I regret not being able to participate more fully at present, but my 
dissertation is due in in a month and panic is setting in. I hope 
after that I can be more active again. 

Meanwhile, I hope that I can see something about SURREALISM on this 
list, which will not bore the pants off me, or Chris, or anyone else.

Stuart Inman
> <monsieurtexteEM-AT-hotmail.com>
> 
> 
> 
> ---------------------------------------------------------
> Get Your *Web-Based* Free Email at http://www.hotmail.com
> ---------------------------------------------------------
>