Dee, thanks for this very interesting response, on Godard, and what you have now described as analogies of "Impulse", through singular and collective 'economies' and depending on how indviduals and collectivities work on "our 'corporeities'" - assuming that they can be worked on (consciously) and are also worked on (unconsciously), yes? I am trying to wrap my head around this, to see whether the gravitational theory is a humanist/anthropocentric body-mind theory or a somatic theory, and i do not know enough about somatic concepts to understand where they locate issues of choice, will, decision making, understanding, in relation to other organizations (organisms, and we are back to Artaud and Deleuze and the Body without Organs, yes?, and the hieroglyphics) that you refer to as "corporeities' (= the body in terms of how it organises intensity and intentionality), how does "it" organize" and what is that it? what if there was no id? and no anima?
where do these intensities come from, are they similar to Deleuze's "flows" and Lyotard's libidinal economies and pulsations? (I think Lyotard speaks of undifferentiated libidinal pulsations when discussing life and death drives, and this discussion takes place when he looks at art & the sublime, I think). I worry as usual about pure affective intensities, but you seem ti indicate that >>actions and interactions are specific to given situations and 'balances of power', >> ah what balances of power? in gravitational sense or socio-political sense? I think there are no balances of power, and I fear the predatory in capitalism overwhelms. regards Johannes Dee schreibt: >> This also opens up an area of communication between subjects, notably in contact improvisation where one can enter the gravitational system of another, leading to 'singular and moving geographies, comprised of and in flux' (same interview). There is much more of course - and this clearly has implications for how shared kinesthesia can be a driver for empathy I find this very suggestive in terms of the implications and repercussions of how we manage what Laban called Impuls (approximately translated as effort) through singular and collective 'economies'. The emphasis on the singular means that there is no question of universalism or totality - this is in answer to the last part of your question 'to what extent is a "theory" of energetics (unconscious / uncontrolled) liable to be misunderstood, if we think back/recollect again, through our collective trauma corpus, the fascist and totalitarian collectivizing movements of the 20th century? a very bad dream time.' The way I see it, the pre-movement, the unconscious 'economy' which gives the impetus to our actions and interactions is specific to given situations and 'balances of power'. It is open to being worked on, to being modified - it is not a blind force which drives us (unless we allow that to be the case) - change is possible through how we work on our 'corporeities', and change is always both specific and provisional . . . >> _______________________________________________ empyre forum empyre@lists.cofa.unsw.edu.au http://www.subtle.net/empyre
