First--
In joining any list, one is made aware of the rules and guidelines of the
list. One enters into a contract with these in joining.
Of course, with time and experience, one may find oneself disagreeing with
the tenor and tenets of the list. This often happens. An interesting
question would then be, how to work for a positive, constructive change, if
one cares enough about the issues and events of the list--how to effect
this--without resorting to "flaming" or to simply leaving and beginning a
new list, which may incorporate those changes one sees fit and inviting
others to join this.
The bottom line is that one is aware from the outset of the guidelines,
rules--and has entered into a contract of one's own volition.
(Unless of course coerced by say, having to join it for a class or peer
pressure etc)
That said, the issue of the censored person--any question of censorship is
disturbing. Two other lists I am on have had to deal with this--one
decisively, according to its tenets, the other indecisevely, and the problem
drags on. In that way, the flamer (as in "flaming asshole", often--: "he's
a real flamer"--meaning this)--the flamer has accomplished her/his goal and
made buffoons of the others. Eventually, this too leads to censorship, but
in more hypocritical fashion.
There is a Zen parable relating to this idea of "beating a dead horse":
A master and his pupil are on a journey through mountainous and deeply
forested country to an isolated temple.
On the way, they encounter a a dangerous, rushing stream.
A beautiful young woman stands at the edge of one side, with a heavy sack.
She is afraid to cross, though she must.
The master puts her atop his shoulders and carries her across. They part
ways, she taking another path.
Many miles and hours later, the pupil says to the master--"why did you pick
up that woman? Isn't it against our vows?"
The master replies: "I put the woman down at the edge of the stream. You
have been carrying her ever since".
As a child I often noticed the strange fact that very intelligent people
often yearned to demonstrate their intelligence--whether it was of their own
conception and self-proclamation or bolstered by "proofs" in the way of
tests, grades, degrees and so on--
they yearned to prove this by argumentation. Rapidly, the principles and
questions of the arguments were abandoned, and it became a clash of
personalities. Victory would somehow prove not only intelligence but a
certain kind of might. "Might makes right"--"the squeaky wheel gets the
grease"--
And so one received one's first lessons in sophistry and rhetoric.
Thinking of this question of "putting principles before personalities",
came across an interesting quote from Kierkegaard, cited by the Surrealist
painter Andre Masson in an essay called "Painting is a Wager" (written in
1941 and included in THEORIES OF MODERN ART Edited by Herschel Chipp.
Berkeley: U Cal Press, 1968; 436-40. The Kierkegaard quote is appended as a
note by Masson, p. 440).
I think it applies well to the kind of arguments and such that employ mere
power plays connected with personalities rather than an essay in the action
of a generative questioning and understanding of actions, events, questions,
examples--and lead to more thought and work rather than the excruciating
noise of ever louder amplifiers, leading to demogogery and the like.
(Demi-god-ery for example.)
Kierkegaard:
We must not take the word contradiction in the mistaken sense in
which
Hegel used it and which he made others and contradiction
itself believe
that it had a creative power.
Though personally I often enjoy the "witz" as Bertrand calls them (jokes)
and participate in them, I also, like Bertrand, joined the list hoping to
find a continual learning and opening up of questions which are involved
with the history and events and ideas and objects of Fluxus, and their
relations with other art/performance questions.
Also, one hopes to contribute to this--
The agreement or disagreement is not so important as what one may find--and
be able to make use of!
Which raises the old question of the artist/maker as thief--
or--speaking of wagers as Masson and someone on the list did--that
famous
wagerer Pascal's proposition that "it is not the elements that are new, but
the order of their arrangement".
Which bears on the question raised on the list of the constancy or not such
of nature--the question entropy/negentropy.
(Two good books on this are: ART AND ENTROPY by Rudolf Arnheim (U
Cal P I forget the year, also the title I may have reversed--it
may be
"Entropy and Art"), and ORDER OUT OF CHAOS by Ilya
Prigogine and
Isabelle Stengers (New York: Bantam, 1984)
Perhaps this is all by way of analogy, but hope maybe it opens some areas
for further questioning and research and making works--
--dave baptiste chirot
________________________________________________________________________
Get Your Private, Free E-mail from MSN Hotmail at http://www.hotmail.com
