<html>
<head>
<meta content="text/html; charset=windows-1252"
http-equiv="Content-Type">
</head>
<body bgcolor="#FFFFFF" text="#000000">
<div class="moz-cite-prefix">Dear <<empyreans>>,<br>
<br>
some questions to Charles follow, that may or may not require a
wider audition, although Johannes's<br>
<br>
</div>
<blockquote
cite="mid:899F3B65F6A5C8419026D0262D3CECB82E57BB54@v-ex10mb2.academic.windsor"
type="cite">
<pre wrap="">where 'representation' falters a little, at least.
affects? attaching meanings and metaphors nevertheless seems unavoidable for the toucher.</pre>
</blockquote>
leads me to think these thoughts, however ragged, are yet worth
adding to the texture of the fabric of the discussion. And on the
"affective sensorium" Alessandra recalls from Derek's introduction,
a note that Michel Serres<i>'s The Five Senses: A Philosophy of
Mingled Bodies (I)</i> (1985 & 2008 English) when not harping
on the supremacy of the exact sciences, provides a term, <i>coenaesthesia</i>,
for the mingling sensoria to set them free from their allocated
roles, and from being affectively enclosed under the bell-jar of a
singular sensorium, about which he writes: <br>
<br>
<blockquote>Here is the tomb of empiricism, clad in engraved marble.
The body, the statue, our knowledges or memories, libraries or
cenotaphs: all imprison the phantom by denying its existence.<br>
</blockquote>
On coenaesthesia in a mouthful of wine:<br>
<br>
<blockquote>I taste; existence for my mouth. I feel; and a piece of
me thus comes to exist. There was a blank void in the place which
was just born of the sensible. ... The edges of my tongue had no
existence of their own until they emerged from underneath a
coating of Chateau Margaux; the broad sides of the body itself
remain blank; empty coenaesthesia suffers or enjoys this multiple
birthing, ongoing creation. A new tongue grows. Then touch, a real
hand with five real fingers, my very own palm ...this improbable
skin envelopes me at the zones that see, hear, shiver and fold
inwards, to great depths.<br>
</blockquote>
A final line from Serres:<br>
<br>
<blockquote>Darkness is concerned with optic space and retains
Euclidean volume; shadow, like clarity, preserves the order of
common geometry; fog occupies a variety of topologies and is
concerned with the continuous or ragged space of touch. ... Shadow
leaves everything invariable and mist makes everything variable -
continuously, whether broken or unbroken.<br>
</blockquote>
<br>
To Charles:<br>
<br>
<div class="moz-text-flowed" style="font-family: -moz-fixed;
font-size: 12px;" lang="x-unicode">on whose behalf are you
speaking when you write that "blackness and race are still largely
<b class="moz-txt-star"><span class="moz-txt-tag">*</span>understood<span
class="moz-txt-tag">*</span></b> representationally"?
<br>
<br>
I would also like to question the "essential labor" of
"[d]estabilizing the representational paradigm of race". Is race
essentially a representational paradigm? Is race essential? Or,
does race, not to speak of blackness [!], have to be considered
essential in order that this "essential labor" be undertaken?
<br>
<br>
Sound, because it is "largely <b class="moz-txt-star"><span
class="moz-txt-tag">*</span>understood<span
class="moz-txt-tag">*</span></b>" to be "less beholden" (what
a strange way of putting it) to representation ("than images"), is
surely then more likely to be largely left unanalyzed in its
representational role.
<br>
<br>
And, in that role, or according to "representational and
metaphorical valences of Blackness and race" what would it do?
what role would it be playing if it could be uncovered that sound
was in fact playing a role?
<br>
<br>
What else is this 'representation' than an understanding? If it be
largely understood this way, it is playing the role of a
consensus, no? A very Kantian tribunal is at work here.
<br>
<br>
I would suggest that such valences--and I have to admit, I don't
quite understand this word--as are representational and
metaphorical largely carry on because of an inadequate (perhaps
because it is at large) understanding of the work they do, and how
they labour, all too productively, at it.
<br>
<br>
Best,
<br>
Simon Taylor<br>
<br>
<a class="moz-txt-link-freetext" href="http://squarewhiteworld.com/">http://squarewhiteworld.com/</a><br>
<br>
On 09/04/16 07:20, Linscott, Charles wrote:
<br>
<blockquote type="cite" style="color: #000000;">----------empyre-
soft-skinned space----------------------
<br>
Dear Jenny,
<br>
<br>
Regarding the representational and metaphorical valences of
Blackness and race more generally:
<br>
<br>
<br>
Yes, these are absolutely problematic and far too facile.
Nevertheless, blackness and race are still largely <b
class="moz-txt-star"><span class="moz-txt-tag">*</span>understood<span
class="moz-txt-tag">*</span></b> representationally, which
is why the work of liquid blackness (as a group), along with the
efforts of its progenitors and influences, is so vital.
Destabilizing the representational paradigm of race is a
difficult but essential labor. For me, sound helps to perform
this labor because it is less obviously beholden to
representation than images. Of course, strictly opposing sound
and image is problematic in itself, but I do feel that thinking
about Blackness and sound is fecund and provocative. What kind
of work does Blackness do in sound, music, and voice? What (or
where) is the “Blackness” in a “Black” voice or “Black” music?
What happens to “Blackness” without the representational ease
provided by an allegedly legible “Black” body?
<br>
<br>
<br>
Thanks to everyone—but particularly Derek, Alessandra, Jenny,
and Murat (superb questions!)—for the opportunity to be a part
of this extraordinary conversation. I look forward to the coming
weeks.
<br>
<br>
Cheers,
<br>
<br>
Chip
<br>
</blockquote>
</div>
</body>
</html>