Re: [-empyre-] nice and naughty
- To: soft_skinned_space <firstname.lastname@example.org>, The Paul Annears <email@example.com>
- Subject: Re: [-empyre-] nice and naughty
- From: ian clothier <firstname.lastname@example.org>
- Date: Fri, 21 Jan 2005 03:13:50 -0800 (PST)
- Comment: DomainKeys? See http://antispam.yahoo.com/domainkeys
- Delivered-to: email@example.com
- Domainkey-signature: a=rsa-sha1; q=dns; c=nofws; s=s1024; d=yahoo.com; b=oGfY30AK3hcunBXhHL7wme5LxCM1k2hQcnGIK8DMcVQkN1+alCEFHPiaM0M1d3ONqwXFQJpVabq5Vztnv6nSnlOuNxyLkhucp73yBI4LG3KKqNv/exiuPOVhGqfwA5ZmwIEGJ5BrVnU4xRZrsO2izzJxCs1M5M05daa0pJQZ/2M= ;
- In-reply-to: <firstname.lastname@example.org>
- Reply-to: soft_skinned_space <email@example.com>
Do we not live in a multiplicity? By which there
cannot not be a singular answer to any question,
So, the tradition of academic adversarialism is surely
bankrupt. Any issue over the correctness of any
position must rest on the notion that one truth is
However, given multiplicity and multi-racial
acceptance then the notion of one idea being correct
must be set aside.
This surely is simply reminding people of what they
already know. There is more to understanding how
various ideas mesh on the plane of reality, than to
deciding over the merits of one idea over another.
As such artists and academics in the art world stand
alongside eachother. I spent all of my 20's and 30's
being an artist and now in my fourties I'm an
academic. Well it was fun being an artist and living
on wits and whatever else, but the whole boom-bust
economic scenario got boring, real bad after 20 years.
Life has its ins and outs. In either scenario - as
artist or paid academic, there are things to do that
can only be dreamed of.
--- Helen Varley Jamieson
> this is all well & good, but wasn't it a paul annear
> who assumed in a
> post the other day (yesterday?) that everyone had
> read a certain
> author? (i assure you everyone has not). & "some
> well known, some
> rather more obscure" is another assumption - what's
> well known to me
> may be quite obscure to you.
> frameworks have 'good' & 'bad' aspects (like most
> things); if there's
> no framework at all, it's a bit hard to challenge,
> break out of, go
> beyond it. & using words like 'good' & 'bad' implies
> some kind of
> measuring framework. having something, be it a
> framework or a concept
> or aotearoa or a banana, as a starting point for a
> discussion is
> useful, especially if you're having a discussion
> with such a diverse
> group as this list.
> then yeah, go ahead & hack it wide open.
> h : )
> >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
> >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
> helen varley jamieson: creative catalyst
> empyre forum
Do you Yahoo!?
Yahoo! Mail - You care about security. So do we.
This archive was generated by a fusion of
Pipermail 0.09 (Mailman edition) and