Re: [-empyre-] nice and naughty

Listening, as su b avers, is good.  Voice is good.  Labeling is bad,
so I would object to her comment that 'Paul may label a voice

To attempt to clarify, for those writing and for those listening, any
statement from this pen is not an exercise in labeling, it is not a
fixed position of the writer.  It is an attempt to use words
provocatively and therefore effectively.  To borrow sistero's
terminology (if I understand her correctly): to 'hack the narrative'.

When a discussion is within certain agreed parameters it is already a
dead discussion.  Einstein, to pick a popular example, threw everybody
with his outrageous ideas.  The are plenty of other examples, some
well known, some rather more obscure.

I suppose it is true that most people prefer to think within a clear
framework.  However there are in fact no clear frameworks, there are
only ad hoc frameworks of varying clevernesses.  For me the challenge
is to recognise a framework of assumptions for what it is ( a prison
cell) and to attempt by whatever means to go beyond the proven.

One way of doing this is to use words slightly or outrageously outside
their commonly accepted meanings.  The categories that appear to give
structure to The Concise Model of the Universe are named in this way. 
Another way is to challenge the shared assumptions of a group, and if
one is listening it is immediately clear when there are cozy shared
assumptions.  In case there is any misunderstanding, I am not
referring to a situation where everybody agrees with each other during
the discussion.

It is instructive, I suggest to look at Shakespeare (a name mentioned
elsewhere on this forum, and to ask: how would my thinking be
different if spelling was not standardised.  What is the significance
of 'correct' spelling?  How would my thinking be different if there
was no 'written' language.

Finally, for now, going back to the concept 'academic', it is
instructive to look at the origins of the word and to realise that the
meaning (the associative grid attached to the word) has shifted and


On Wed, 19 Jan 2005 22:02:25 +1300, su b <> wrote:
> Hello everyone,
> I don't know if any discussions is ever representational. But as a
> life-time lurker (my online life started somewhere around cybermind
> when was this, 1994? 1996? - not sure) - I have watched listened, and
> gained so much from internet lists as a 'silent' partner. I think it is
> very easy to overlook the people who are here, not writing, but always
> fully participating. And by  making claims for representation we tend
> to do that, and make blunt (often incorrect) assumptions about each
> other.  A conversation is not only the people who open their mouths and
> rattle the keys. Instead the issue which i find more interesting here
> is one of voices. The discussion about online presentation for me is
> about voice and disclosure. Paul may label a voice academic, I might
> find myself hidden in between it's phrase, lost for words, silent, but
> not un-represented. All exchanges are influenced by position, location
> and voice. (Donna Haraway's essay on situated knowledge comes into play
> for me here) And this exchange cannot be separated out, we cannot
> discuss nz/ aotearoa digital/ new media practice without navigating our
> way through this water, and writing and re writing our networks and our
> philosophies, but as Ian Clothier recently wrote on the ADA list, this
> is in reality an extended boundary. Aotearoa does not stop or start at
> the foreshore :)  For me, a mutability of practice which negotiates
> some of these paths,  includes my practice as a digital artist, and my
> writing, but most importantly the thrill of exchange is found in the
> opportunity to listen to people with very different agendas,
> experiences, positions and locations,... a difference in kind.
> su
> _______________________________________________
> empyre forum

The Paul Annears

This archive was generated by a fusion of Pipermail 0.09 (Mailman edition) and MHonArc 2.6.8.