From: Cari Machet (email suppressed)
Date: Fri Mar 10 2006 - 09:21:56 PST
On 3/8/06, Zev Robinson <email suppressed> wrote:
> thanks for the email Cari, I'm swamped with things and can't reply as I'd
> like to, but if you don't mind, a couple of questions that may be critical
> of your position
> but asked with all due respect -
"due" who decides due? (john stuart mill)
but thanks anyway
for ur courtesy
i agree with you that hollywood can make art and can make avant garde art
commercials can even b such 2 me
>
> Are we not all driven by personal histories and cultural circumstances, or
> as you would put it, sheep?
some of us are completely driven by instinctual drives
and some of us can see a bit beyond that
am i a sheep because i eat and shit (am surviving)?
- no -
you are making a leap in logic
>Is your attitude towards religion based on your
> particular experience of it and therefore just as predjudicial?
my "attitude" (conclusions based in logic) are formed fr: knowledge of history
and philosophical study
also we stand on the shoulders of giants
(have genetic code w/ encoded memory)
>If you are
> crtical of your father's negative
> judgement of nyc without having so much as having visited, let alone live
> there, why would you made a negative comment about me without knowing me?
umn another leap
but not sure i did that
i "knew" what you wrote in ur post
and commented on it
i am critcal of my fathers narrow mindedness
>
> I've met people who because of or alongside deeply held religious
> convictions have dedicated themselves to social activism, sometimes making
> their lives uncomfortable and even putting themselves in dangerous
> positions, and are as critical of religious institutions and open and as
> much individuals (if not more so) as anyone I've met. If that is so, would
> you be willing to, not necessarily change your mind, but to re-consider your
> position? if you cannot show that someone like Van Gogh or Fra Angelico or
> even John Cage (if you want to consider Zen a religion - Japan is a very
> conformist society, anyway) are less individuals than anyone else, would you
> re-consider? If not, are you not stereotyping and being dogmatic about it as
> much as those you criticize below?
there is categorizing and stereotyping - different
i really do consider zen a religion
(umn ur sentence (don't) make sense to me here but...
i think u mean if van gogh and john cage were religious then
would my mind be different about it
as we all have compartmentalized aspects
i see no reason that it would change my mind in any way
they compartmentalized
were individuals in some aspects and were not in others
for u 2 have 'summed' them up in ur attributating is inaccurate
in order for you to sum up you would have to look at the whole
7 is part of 9 but... it doesn't mean it is 9
>
> Is not the term white men, the way you use it, not stereotyping and racist,
> and in doing so stereotypes non-whites too? Are you refering to Chet Baker,
> Allen Ginsburg, Stan Brackage....? What's the opposite, Condolezza Rice?
my term is white guy
not white men
that is ur projection
(i as a woman have been called a guy numerous times in my life)
it is a reference fr: indie film like "imc"
"democracy now" stuff
it is commonly used in that areana
it is short for many negative adjectives
pointed toward the world bank institution + members and general power mongers
rapist and pillagers
and has little to do with race or sex
condi is a "white guy"
it is used as an efficiency there are so many negative adjectives to
describe such people
it is just easier
(white men use it as well in these circles)
if you don't get it u don't
>
> I don't require Martin Luther King to be perfect for him to be inspiring. I
> don't even have to agree with him, tho I can't find much to disagree with,
> and even if I did, I don't feel that it would be my right to second guess a
> person like that in the context that he was in. he stood up for his values
> on a social and political level in a context of the south in the early
> sixties that none of us can imagine what it would have been like. He did so
> without degrading or dehumanizing anyone else, but never backed down from
> his positive values. In what way is that akin to a sheep?
these attributes don't reflect his sheep qualities
that he has these attributes doesn't prove he was not a sheep
for u 2 have 'summed' him up in ur attributating is inaccurate
in order for you to sum up you would have to look at the whole
7 is part of 9 but... it doesn't mean it is 9
-further-
i believe in no god
and to believe in god to me is a cop out -
you don't have to be accountable for what goes down
or really feel deeply the world (god has a plan and all that crap)
it is a sheeps mentality
you are lead
by this unknowable omnipotent whatever
it's not logical
and just reflects our natures mommy and daddy and child relationship
nothing to do with a larger reality
just our own little life experiences
it's anthropocentric and profoundly limited
>
> Gandhi (in the movie version anyway) was asked how he rates himself
> according to his own philosophy, he replies very poorly, that is why I am so
> tolerant with others.
i don't think he was tolerant
i think he kicked serious ass
>
> Time and travel won't permit me to continue this debate, but just wanted let
> you know that your email helped me understand your position and attitude,
> and hope you'll consider mine in the spirit it was meant.
>
> Best,
>
> Zev
>
> ps the debate about art vs ag art, if there is a difference, quite debatable
> in itself, will have to wait, too.
look up the word avant garde
words have meaning and we use them 4 a reason
c
__________________________________________________________________
For info on FrameWorks, contact Pip Chodorov at <email suppressed>.