From: "Pierre Petiot" <p_petiot-AT-euronet.nl>
Date: Tue, 1 Jul 1997 00:53:46 +0000
Subject: Re: ????dumbfounded object (in the nursery)


Hi,

> >Everywhere is always a god-free zone.
> 
> If that is the case, then why use the word "zone"?  
> Is it because you're looking for a place where "god" doesn't "fly"?

Everywhere is always a god-free zone, but most of the earth is 
covered by God's zelots, of which I am personally more than fed up.

France is living under the threat of fundamentalist muslims,
and the same is true of Algeria, with lots of women and intellectuals 
and even rai singers killed.

Any god-free zone is a good thing.
And religion a shit.

> >Surrealists with quotation marks? Who do you mean? 
> 
> Simply that "surrealism" is now an archaism; and anyone who calls 
> him/herself a "surrealist" today is simply regressing, looking naively 
> backward, seeking the safety of the nursery.  

Sorry, Edward, but this is totally ridiculous.

I am not encouraging you to take the following for yourself, because 
I think that you are worth better.

Yet I have to state clearly a few things, because the argument you 
used above is a bit LOW.
And I am SURE that you know better, so let's go...

It is extremely funny to see what sort of attitude dares to speak 
about regression.
This is the permanent story told on alt.surrealism, 
by people who have so little culture and education about surrealism
(and obviously not too much culture and education at all)
that they have very very little chance to regress themselves,
having never reached anything like a start towards anywhere.

> Of course you will think, by this, that I am just trying to be provocative 
> -- but that is not true.  

Why would you hope to be provocative with the above, Edward,
since you are in total conformity with the opinion of millions of people ?

There are hundreds of more subtle ways to approach this problem
- as IT IS a problem, and not specifically for surrealism -
so why are you choosing the most vulgar opinion and comply with it?

Why not be a little bit original, and surprise people with at 
least SOME new ideas on this precise subject.

I wrote above that this problem was more the problem of the rest of 
the world than the problem of surrealism.
Obviously, considering the huge numbers of surrealists in the world,
we cannot really be persuaded of our own  critical importance.
As a matter of fact, I do not even remember having met a surrealist who 
was showing exagerated pride about what he was.
I did not really met surrealists who were re-selling the glorious 
past either.
I think current surrealists know pretty well where they are and where 
they are not, and they have very little illusions about it, even if 
that does not make them really happy.

But what I meet daily, are ignorant people who are speaking of a 
movement they are hardly aware of.
Which is a pity for their general level of awareness.

Believing that something as no interest because newspapers 
(art or sports newspapers) do not report about it, equates to being 
manipulated in the most pitiful manner.

For the time being, I have found almost always huge flaws 
in most people who state so loudly that surrealism is dead.
The SI had the right to make such a statement 
because the SI was actually better at least on lots of critical points.

But all those people 
who are burrying so pitifully what they do not even understand, 
are they doing better like the SI did ?
are they showing any sort of excellence 
as regards setting up objectives 
that would make life worth living, 
or give hope,
or even simply contradict the "new world wide order" ?

Certainly not, or we would be quickly aware of it.
I have not seen that any surrealist had (ultimately) refused 
to take into account the theorical statements invented by the SI,
nor the practical ones.
What is questionable, is whether they are faithful to the SI theory,
that is capable of pushing it further, of going beyond it.
Yes, that may be questioned.

But who else is not questionable in this area ? 
Who has proved to be able to produce a better theory than the one 
that the SI built ?
Who has been able of doing concretely better.

Visibly, no one...
And that's a pity and a shame.

Now,
if the previous revolutionary movement is a corpse, 
and if this dead, rotten and stinking world is also a corpse, 
is the question to chose which corpse is the freshest ?

Is the only valuable activity left consisting into counting worms ?
Is that all what is left to discusss about, indeed?

And even forgetting this precise aspect, if you take into account 
what has really been moving in terms of new media, 
science, technology and so on,
are the people burrying surrealism in a better situation as regards 
drawing the intellectual and practical consequences of these new 
aspects of the world ?

That's not even true either.

There are surrealists, who have a minimum of scientific culture, or 
who by their daily jobs are directly in touch with the most recent 
developments. 
That cannot even be said of most of the "burrying" people.

So what ?

If anything new pops out in a close future, it will know that it is 
new because it will have understood its past.
Surrealism and the SI are part of this past, and nobody who has no 
good understanding of both has the sligthest chance of getting 
further without re-doing what has already been done.
(Which would be a waste)

Getting a higher level of awareness, implies going further than the 
previous one, which in turn requires a very high understanding of the 
highest of the previous levels of understanding.

Instead of complaining that the old movement does not provide the new 
thing they are supposedly waiting for, all these people burrying what 
is better than them should create, demonstrate that THEY can better,
that THEY can higher.

There are quite an interesting number of "historical tasks" ahead
and I do not see anyone, surrealist of not, who could be said to be 
working on them.

Obviously this is not happening at all, and please Edward, understand 
that this REALLY makes me sad.

> I would never deny the relevance of studying surrealism, and even 
> of making use of some of its techniques (which I have done so myself).  

But shit, Edward, 
(and the others)
it is our responsibility to create new techniques.
Not only to "study" and "even use" old ones.
This is not going to fall from our glorious past, 
but only from our (slow & patient) work and experimental activity.

> However, there was a tendency in the Surrealist movement (as you should 
> know, Mr. INMAN, since you're doing some sort of dissertation) toward 
> hermeticism, an isolated form of often non-serious "revolt" that 
> Bataille called "Icarian."  This was extremely religious in nature.  I 
> suggest you read Bataille's essay _The "Old Mole" and the Prefix Sur-_.  
> Although, it will probably strike you as flabby philosophizing.
> 
> >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.
> 
> A-ha!  The movement toward hermeticism.... an attempt to protect your 
> little "surrealist" zone from my "un-surrealist" (?) writings!

I would not complain myself about "philosophizing". 
But my feeling is that more work - so to say - more experimental 
activity, would probably close some not very critical debates.
I would like to see at least once, some reports about new 
experimentations, but neither the people claiming that surrealism is 
dead, nor the people who are "preserving the holy temple" seem to 
produce anything of the kind.

So without any experimental activities, how could anything new 
appear, surrealist or not ?

The point is obviously not whether there is or there is not a 
surrealist label on new experimental activities, the point is that 
under whatever label you like, 
there is simply no experimental activity at all.

Once more, I DO agree with Chris Beneke, 
and his essential "fucking" remarks.

But as long as such "fucking" remarks do not re-open the essential 
question of love on this list, as long as Chris's remarks is not 
taken to the letter, with or without this valiant remark, we are not 
getting any step further.


And clearly I do disagree with you Edward, 
(-: as I once disagreed with Frank a long time ago :-)
about your statement that Sade is not a philosopher.

Sade is ESSENTIALLY a philosopher.
Sade is much more tortured by the passion of knowledge than by sex.
(Assuming that establishing a distinction between these 2 aspects of 
life could ever have any sense, which of course is esentially stupid)

Before making any judments about Sade, 
why don't people first read the best books on the subject, 
that is,  Annie Lebrun's books ?

But who knows how to read ?

> >I get the impression that Edward Moore is capable of rather 
> >better than he has given here

It looks quite probable...
 
> >As a founding member of this discussion group
> 
> (!) You most definitely need to read Derrida...

(-: Bof! I don't trust all these French intellectuals, you see...
    Besides, those ones are more famous outside than inside France,
    They must be afraid of their peers, probably :-)

> Read _Limited Inc abc..._.  Also, I should say that I have had a very 
> pleasant and enlightening exchange with Pierre.  I don't know how he 
> feels about it, but I did not find anything he had to say (or Luke 
> Pellen, or others who responded to me) to be "boring."

I confirm that do not feel too bad about the exchange I had with you Edward, 
and what I thought about it, I made clear enough.
(-: Which leaves me entirely free as you can see
    to stress just as clearly some points in the present post 
    that I do not agree with at all
    But is not life that simple ?. :-)

> Furthermore, your feeling of responsibility to this list, and your 
> self-proclaimed role of "founding member" means little to me.  I will 
> continue to follow through with MY role of poison and cure...

It might mean little for you Edward, 
but all (temporary) anger aside, it is a bare fact.

Stuart does not suggest that he did by this a valiant prowess
But well he did do the necessary moves for starting this list, 
and when you know him a little bit better, 
you will realize that it is not really part of his habits 
to emphasize his role in this story.
(-: The less I may say :-)

And it is also quite unfair to say that he is a "self proclaimed" founding 
member, because
(a) - it is quite hard to start a list all alone
      (-: I know, I tried... :-)
(b) - if the people who started this quite little "business" with Stuart
      had not agreed a minimum with, there would just be no s-list at all.

......................

Now my position is the following:

(1) - I think that a less moderate use of the "(-:" sign could help a lot.

(2) - I have some experiments of the most up to date sort to go on 
with, so that I shall actually drop "philosophizing" now.
(Although I like it, but duty is duty...)
(Yet I shall read Edward's posts called 
- "concerning ever-opening space / bricolage"
and
- "Infinite Space"
which I only browsed quickly yet but did not find boring)

(3) - I definitely complain about the fact that the "fucking" requirements of 
Chris are not taken to the letter.

(4) - We are not too far from a situation when getting rid of "god" 
will require actual military efforts - what a waste ! - 
at least if we do not want to be killed like our friends in Algeria. 
And I am not kidding more here than a bomb exploding in the parisian metro. 

Yet, I definetely do not think that Edward is exactly the sort of enemy 
that surrealism should really care of.  


Pierre PETIOT 
http://www.euronet.nl/users/p_petiot/index.html
email: "Pierre Petiot" <p_petiot-AT-euronet.nl>