Re: [-empyre-] Sense as space
Thanks for your critical response, Renate. I'd like to respond specifically to what you see as a contradiction between sedimentation and architecture. I admit my last post wasn't clear. What I meant about architecture being thought about as related to sedimentation, is that it is the process by which the body (that which moves through architectures) becomes or sediments into the architecture. All movement leaves a trace. This trace is generally seen, from Husserl on, as a layering of successive layers of significance, which recede into the passive background of our active experiences. One way to see this is to look at etymology : any one who's looked up the origin of words we commonly use notices that many of them are actually concrescences of two or more ancient words, each with a particular usage and meaning. But there is also a way not to use language but to have language speak for itself (merleau ponty's parole parlante). Poiesis (and as I argue, any bodily act, gesture, performance can be poietic) reveals new meanings, produces new usages for language and gesture, new grammars, new languages, new sense. This kind of topological restructuring allows different kinds of movements, words, gestures to be freely used in the future. So this is why I relate it to architecture. Poiesis is like a restructuring of the architecture that adds doors and moves walls, perhaps cuts through several stories (like a matta clark). This changes the topology of the space we can subsequently move through. But it does not do away with sedimentation. The sedimentation continues in this new topology, as bodies now move through it leaving their trace, a trace which, in normal usage will not be topologically transfiguring, but will be consensual with the architecture. Most of the time, we merely walk through the corridors. This does leave some trace, as is noticable in the steps of my Paris apartment's stairway: decades of people walking up and down those stairs has worn them down, there is a curve in the boards near the middle, and every time I walk up and down them I'm contributing to that wear. However there is a real difference between the trace that I leave as I use the stairway (sedimentation), and the action an architect could have on the stairway if he decided to renovate the building, adding floors, taking down walls, putting them up, adding doors or windows, etc etc. Yet as soon as this renovation would happen, people would start leaving their trace as wear and tear... These are like two levels of trace: sedimentation (wear) is consensual with the architecture, whereas the renovation is a dissensual act: it changes the topology of the space. thanks again alexander ___ empyre forum empyre@lists.cofa.unsw.edu.au http://www.subtle.net/empyre
Re: [-empyre-] Sense as space
Thanks so much Alexander for sharing your work particularly your project The Hinge Dimension. It has been a brutal transition back to reality this week after the amazing sights of Paris. Tim and I were able to taks some time after the Sense Colloquium to see the FIAC Contemporary Art Fair. Additionally we roamed the streets of Paris for day without any itinerary just sensing the streets and using our whims to direct us from one place to the next. There are many choreographers and performance studies scholars who work from the departure of movement and criticality within space. In fact in May of 2009 we hosted a discussion on the topic of Critical Motion Practice. Sedimentation in relationship to the ³architecture of sense² appears to be contradictory in my mind especially in your desire for the ³people to test the spaces they inhabit, entice people to stop taking spaces as unchanging and determining factors of their bodily movements.² In regards to sedimentation, the body still follows the land structures. Can it be that we have an environment where the land follows and morphs the movement of a critical, discerning, thinking and sensing body? If Johannes, Sally, Erin, Ashley or any of our other empyre subscribers have thoughts about sedimentation I curious about what you think? Renate On 10/26/10 4:35 PM, Alexander Wilson 0...@parabolikguerilla.com wrote: Hello again, Thanks to those who responded. I feel encouraged to expand on these ideas of sense as space. Insofar as the topological body can take part in sense¹s production, there are several different angles from which this production can be explored. For a time I explored this idea from the point of view of architecture. An architecture is a built space, an artificial one. However, most of us never take part in the production of these spaces: most of us merely follow the corridors they offer us to move through. If we reduce the idea of architecture to two essential characteristics : walls which restrict movement, and passageways which allow movement. Like a labyrinth, sense allows movement in certain directions while hindering others. For a while my art was invested in offering people more ways of modifying the spaces they inhabit. In 2007 I collaborated (with architect and interaction designer, Karmen Franinovic) on a project that would experiment with this idea. The project was called Hinge Dimension and was commissioned by the Enter Festival in Cambridge, UK. We built a two-dimensional array of freely pivoting walls that could be rearranged in various ways to form corridors and rooms. There was embedded circuitry in all of the walls that allowed us to analyze the the ³flow² of the entire space. This flow factor and it¹s directions drove a surround-sound and a visual representation of the flow which was projected onto the ceiling of the space. (it was a monster of a project) We installed it in Lepers Chapel in Cambridge. The goal was to demonstrate how different topologies of space allow for different movement, and to encourage people to test the spaces they inhabit, entice them to stop taking spaces as unchanging and determining factors of their bodily movements, but to actually start taking action to reorganize the architecture¹s topology. (An inspiration for Hinge Dimension was Cedric Price¹s ³fun palace² which was an architecture which reinvented itself cybernetically to adapt itself to it¹s inhabitants needs and desires.) (Though somewhat different, this work resonates with Gordon Matta-Clark's as well.) If sense is spatial, then the production of the ³architecture of sense² can be understood along the lines of ³sedimentation² (phenomenology). Sedimentation happens when that which is flowing becomes the structure through which it flows, when the particles flowing through the river become the land supporting the river, directing it. In a way, all sense is imperatively conjugated: we tend to allow ourselves to be guided wherever the current is the strongest and wherever one¹s body can most easily steer clear of obstacles, avoid running up ashore or hitting bottom, avoid friction. For to avoid the sediment is to avoid death. The poet, the artist, on the other hand, digs his heels into the mud and draws water from unknown sources. I see sedimentation as a physical process in which sense is constantly involved. It is the other arrow of time, the reason why memory always moves from from explicit to implicit, from conscious to reflexive, from creative action to automatic gesture. Language, it could be said, has physical properties. As made explicit in the sculptural writings of Valère Novarina, words attract each other, repel each other, bounce off of each other, neutralize each other, etc. They make the body and mind move in and out of specific spaces. And though words take on a new world of possibilities each time they are spoken, there is something about them that
Re: [-empyre-] Sense as space
Alexander Moi aussi, I am involved in glyphlike topologic drawings http://www.christinamcphee.net/category/drawing/ in my shed /teorema series 2010. growing out of the 'tesserae of venus' attempt to model climate change as a personal/physical measurement of wonder. I am reposting quotes from your post below to facebook and twitter. very succinct. thanks, and hi Sergio, as always-often we are in sync. c naxsmash naxsm...@mac.com christina mcphee http://christinamcphee.net On Oct 24, 2010, at 5:49 PM, sergio basbaum wrote: Alexander, Thank you for you beautiful message. Most of my work in the last years have been exploring different aspects of the multiple meaning of the word sense, as body apparatus, direction and meaning, with a merleau-pontian inspiration. I'm happy to read what your doing, there's alot of common intuitions. best vibes from Brazil s On Sun, Oct 24, 2010 at 9:01 PM, Alexander Wilson 0...@parabolikguerilla.com wrote: Hello Empyrecists, Thanks Renate for introducing me to the list. Though I have not yet posted, I have been following the discussions for a couple of weeks now. I'd like to write down a few thoughts, post Making Sense Colloquium, and hope they may spark some new tangent discussions. A lot of my theatre and art work has dealt with the idea that sense as in meaning and sense as in sensation, is inherently tied to a third homonym, at least with the french word sens : sense as direction or orientation. This lead me to conceptualize sense as space, space which is not only physical and through which our bodies move, but a heterogeneous space that also includes psychological space, that is, spaces through which our minds move. Sense as meaning and sense as sensation are etymologically derived from the idea of earlier words meaning to find ones way or to orient oneself (see proto indo-european base *sent-, which means to go). So spatiality is extremely important if we want to look at sense holistically. If both are minds and our body are in sense, that is, if they orient themselves within sense in a holistic manner, then we must think of the mind and body as one entity. I have often used the term “topological body” to refer to this, though it is somewhat misleading. The idea comes from the topology of non-orientable forms in topology, like the mobeius strip and the klein bottle, the definitions of which give us a way of thinking how the outside, physical world, could be continuous to the internal mental world. If one were to stand on a gaint klein bottle's surface, one might get the impression that the ground on which he stands has an other side, below his feet, as it were, when in fact this “other side” is continuous to the “side” he is standing on : the klein bottle only has one side. Likewise, the topological body only has one side. The inside mental space of the subjet extends continuously into the physical world outside. The topological body is thus both mind and body. In my work with Parabolik Guerilla Theatre, I have often treated the question of the difference between “having sense”, that is, merely being determined by the space in which the topological body is embeded, and “making sense”, that is actively participating in the constant reorganization of that space. Merleau-Ponty wrote about the difference between parole parlée and parole parlante in this way. It is possible to “use” language in a non creative way, whereas it is also possible to create through language, to reveal through language something other than what a word means on a merely semiotic level. This creative use of language is poïesis. But this distinction between having sense and making sense extends to areas which we don’t usually call language : gestures also adhere to this principle. The body is constantly involved in automatic gestures, it relies on innumerable unconscious gestures that “make” no sense but have sense, that is, the body is on constantly decoding sense which is already there, inscribed in the repetitive processes which make up our present, inherited from the past. However, there are ways in which the body can attempt to become poïetic, and take part in new encodings of sense, create new propagating processes, revealing new meanings, new ways to move, new ways to interact with the world (or be the world). In our practice with Parabolik Guerilla Theatre, Japanese Butoh has been a huge inspiration, and from the very beginning was part of our physical training regimen. Butoh deals with exactly this idea of transcending the usual gestural and postural automatisms that are only decodings of sense. It is and active attempt to not be determined by sense, but actually take part in producing it. The idea of a topological body and of sense as space also ties in with butoh’s sense of the body and space, where the exterior
Re: [-empyre-] Sense as space
Hi All I am still en route, feeling displaced in so many ways that I find it hard to focus. But I don't think this is the source of my feeling that the Making Sense event in Paris was unsatisfactory in more ways than not, some of them worrying. There is an enormous amount of work in the general area of practice related research, almost none of which was referenced. Participants including me have long experience which could have been useful. I say this, not in the spirit of territorial claims for a disciplinary approach, but rather in terms of the proper academic research that the event ought to be. Academic research is not the other to practice. It is in uneasy and contested and sometimes productive tension with it. Potentially, Making Sense could have a contribution to make to this work. But not in its present form, which is highly questionable. Why were there some overtly self-promotional and/or politico-social presentations which had no reflexivity or critical reflection whatsoever, and, worse, did not allow it? Why was there an attempt to suppress debate when dissent was expressed? If there was little political discussion in the formal part of the conference, it was because many participants quickly realized it would be closed out, and, frankly, it wasn't worth the effort in this arena. I am not part of Making Sense. I simply attended a conference. Several statements were made in sessions about what 'Making Sense' might become, and if I'm being vague, it is because these statements were all completely impenetrable. This event is forming a poltical agenda whether everyone involved likes it or not. I do not like being co-opted into something undefined with some unclear future. Some straightforward questions, the answers to which most academic conferences put up front in some way: Who exactly is on the collective? What roles did they play in the selection of papers? What is the editorial policy? How were decisions made? What exactly is the role of Cambridge University and other prestige institutions, and how far do they sanction it? What is the academic frame of reference, apart from keynote big names? So I find myself in the unaccustomed position of defending academic convention. Sign of the times, perhaps. When something is under such threat as open academic research and debate now is, one come to realize its value. I had been going to comment more specifically on the Stiegler contribution, but don't know whether to do so now. I'll think about it. And I'll say how much I got from meeting some participants, and from their contributions, in spite of the stranger features of this strangest of conferences. Penny On 25 October 2010 00:01, Alexander Wilson 0...@parabolikguerilla.comwrote: Hello Empyrecists, Thanks Renate for introducing me to the list. Though I have not yet posted, I have been following the discussions for a couple of weeks now. I'd like to write down a few thoughts, post Making Sense Colloquium, and hope they may spark some new tangent discussions. A lot of my theatre and art work has dealt with the idea that sense as in meaning and sense as in sensation, is inherently tied to a third homonym, at least with the french word sens : sense as direction or orientation. This lead me to conceptualize sense as space, space which is not only physical and through which our bodies move, but a heterogeneous space that also includes psychological space, that is, spaces through which our minds move. Sense as meaning and sense as sensation are etymologically derived from the idea of earlier words meaning to find ones way or to orient oneself (see proto indo-european base **sent-,* which means to go). So spatiality is extremely important if we want to look at sense holistically. If both are minds and our body are *in *sense, that is, if they orient themselves within sense in a holistic manner, then we must think of the mind and body as one entity. I have often used the term “topological body” to refer to this, though it is somewhat misleading. The idea comes from the topology of non-orientable forms in topology, like the mobeius strip and the klein bottle, the definitions of which give us a way of thinking how the outside, physical world, could be continuous to the internal mental world. If one were to stand on a gaint klein bottle's surface, one might get the impression that the ground on which he stands has an other side, below his feet, as it were, when in fact this “other side” is continuous to the “side” he is standing on : the klein bottle only has one side. Likewise, the topological body only has one side. The inside mental space of the subjet extends continuously into the physical world outside. The topological body is thus both mind and body. In my work with Parabolik Guerilla Theatre, I have often treated the question of the difference between “having sense”, that is, merely being determined by the space in which the topological body is embeded,
Re: [-empyre-] Sense as space
To: soft_skinned_space Subject: Re: [-empyre-] Sense as space Hi All I am still en route, feeling displaced in so many ways that I find it hard to focus. But I don't think this is the source of my feeling that the Making Sense event in Paris was unsatisfactory in more ways than not, some of them worrying. There is an enormous amount of work in the general area of practice related research, almost none of which was referenced. Participants including me have long experience which could have been useful. I say this, not in the spirit of territorial claims for a disciplinary approach, but rather in terms of the proper academic research that the event ought to be. Academic research is not the other to practice. It is in uneasy and contested and sometimes productive tension with it. Potentially, Making Sense could have a contribution to make to this work. But not in its present form, which is highly questionable. Why were there some overtly self-promotional and/or politico-social presentations which had no reflexivity or critical reflection whatsoever, and, worse, did not allow it? Why was there an attempt to suppress debate when dissent was expressed? If there was little political discussion in the formal part of the conference, it was because many participants quickly realized it would be closed out, and, frankly, it wasn't worth the effort in this arena. I am not part of Making Sense. I simply attended a conference. Several statements were made in sessions about what 'Making Sense' might become, and if I'm being vague, it is because these statements were all completely impenetrable. This event is forming a poltical agenda whether everyone involved likes it or not. I do not like being co-opted into something undefined with some unclear future. Some straightforward questions, the answers to which most academic conferences put up front in some way: Who exactly is on the collective? What roles did they play in the selection of papers? What is the editorial policy? How were decisions made? What exactly is the role of Cambridge University and other prestige institutions, and how far do they sanction it? What is the academic frame of reference, apart from keynote big names? So I find myself in the unaccustomed position of defending academic convention. Sign of the times, perhaps. When something is under such threat as open academic research and debate now is, one come to realize its value. I had been going to comment more specifically on the Stiegler contribution, but don't know whether to do so now. I'll think about it. And I'll say how much I got from meeting some participants, and from their contributions, in spite of the stranger features of this strangest of conferences. Penny On 25 October 2010 00:01, Alexander Wilson 0...@parabolikguerilla.commailto:0...@parabolikguerilla.com wrote: Hello Empyrecists, Thanks Renate for introducing me to the list. Though I have not yet posted, I have been following the discussions for a couple of weeks now. I'd like to write down a few thoughts, post Making Sense Colloquium, and hope they may spark some new tangent discussions. A lot of my theatre and art work has dealt with the idea that sense as in meaning and sense as in sensation, is inherently tied to a third homonym, at least with the french word sens : sense as direction or orientation. This lead me to conceptualize sense as space, space which is not only physical and through which our bodies move, but a heterogeneous space that also includes psychological space, that is, spaces through which our minds move. Sense as meaning and sense as sensation are etymologically derived from the idea of earlier words meaning to find ones way or to orient oneself (see proto indo-european base *sent-, which means to go). So spatiality is extremely important if we want to look at sense holistically. If both are minds and our body are in sense, that is, if they orient themselves within sense in a holistic manner, then we must think of the mind and body as one entity. I have often used the term topological body to refer to this, though it is somewhat misleading. The idea comes from the topology of non-orientable forms in topology, like the mobeius strip and the klein bottle, the definitions of which give us a way of thinking how the outside, physical world, could be continuous to the internal mental world. If one were to stand on a gaint klein bottle's surface, one might get the impression that the ground on which he stands has an other side, below his feet, as it were, when in fact this other side is continuous to the side he is standing on : the klein bottle only has one side. Likewise, the topological body only has one side. The inside mental space of the subjet extends continuously into the physical world outside. The topological body is thus both mind and body. In my work with Parabolik Guerilla Theatre, I have often treated the question of the difference between
Re: [-empyre-] Sense as space
Dear Penny, Thank you for your comments. I am writing as Bandy, even though I am subscribed under my artist name for Prometheus, because my message to the whole group under Bandy was censored by Renate (I was told that to use this forum for 'administrative' purposes, i.e. for feedback, was inappropriate). Yet I feel that there is a lot that needs to be said, a lot that needs to be learned, and it would be an important use of the forum (it would have little meaning for me if these matters could not be discussed--so I hope you will allow this, Renate and Tim). The chaos of the colloquium reflects the chaos that existed on the committee. Before the organising committee formed, there was already a collective: one that formed naturally after the first event, because there was literally a rally of people who were so moved, they could not bear the thought that it would end after the colloquium. We finally agreed that it would be useful to have another event, even more developed than the first one, as people would know each other and could move/experiment beyond the first event that everyone found so extraordinary. This conversation continued over three months. However, as soon as the organising committee formed, there was an exclusion of everyone else. As an American, I am still trying to grapple with why this had to happen, why we acted like the revolutionary party who took power on behalf of the people but then declared the people too ignorant to take part in the decision-making. Eventually, the vibrant and energetic 'collective' from the first colloquium fell away (only a handful even attended the second event). Much focus was placed on organising the colloquium, but there was very little discussion on what its purpose was, despite the clear disagreement on what each of us wanted for the event (I only learned recently that it is a major faux pas to speak about intentions/subjectivity in the academic arena in France, whereas in the U.S., leaving it out would be considered incomplete/poor scholarship and a sure way to allow subjectivity to take over--in this instance, I would be inclined to agree with the American position). The second quandary I have had is, if the French so bow down to authority as to give Stiegler the whole morning and all the say in what should have been our event, then why was Lorna's position, as leader and the originator of a very unique concept, not respected? Is it because she does not yet have a Ph.D.? Even if her ideas have all the merit? I would very much like to know, especially since the end result does not seem optimal, and we could have avoided these problems. Eight individuals fighting for power and taking part, even when they did not understand or agree with Lorna's vision, is still a question in my mind. If there is a cultural element that I do not understand (having come to this from the most removed continent), I would like to find out. The round table and attempt to form a 'collective' was, in a sense, a scramble to recover the energy we had from the first colloquium. Someone at the discussion said that the round table should have been a whole afternoon. For it to have worked, and for it to take such important space, we needed to have a different colloquium. So the response from participants is not entirely unfounded, and we share, rather than hope to dismiss, the reactions. Lorna and I are planning a colloquium for next year with Robert Storr as the keynote speaker. We are working with our contacts at the Metropolitan Museum, and if the venue gets delayed a year we will go to Yale (or MoMA, as Storr has offered to help us with the site, if necessary), but we will plan a very different event, whereby the open and expandable 'collective' will take central stage and not the margins. Since we will essentially be starting from scratch, I would really like to hear people's thoughts/hopes/expression of interest, if any. Thanks for listening. Best, Bandy --- On Mon, 10/25/10, Gotman, Kelina kelina.got...@kcl.ac.uk wrote: From: Gotman, Kelina kelina.got...@kcl.ac.uk Subject: Re: [-empyre-] Sense as space To: soft_skinned_space empyre@lists.cofa.unsw.edu.au Date: Monday, October 25, 2010, 12:28 PM Hi Penny, I just want to clarify one thing, which I found myself clarifying to Renate and Tim as well: it’s only really a collective inasmuch as a whopping eight of us came together- with our wildly varying approaches to everything that the colloquium incorporated (and more)- to make this happen. I believe I’m the one who used the fateful term way back when we were first formulating some sort of paragraph mission statement, and immediately a huge debate arose. Some felt this was a collective of sorts, and others felt it was not. I situate myself in the latter camp, happy to have seen this thing happen, but not in any way attached to anything that could be qualified as a unified group
[-empyre-] Sense as space
Hello Empyrecists, Thanks Renate for introducing me to the list. Though I have not yet posted, I have been following the discussions for a couple of weeks now. I'd like to write down a few thoughts, post Making Sense Colloquium, and hope they may spark some new tangent discussions. A lot of my theatre and art work has dealt with the idea that sense as in meaning and sense as in sensation, is inherently tied to a third homonym, at least with the french word sens : sense as direction or orientation. This lead me to conceptualize sense as space, space which is not only physical and through which our bodies move, but a heterogeneous space that also includes psychological space, that is, spaces through which our minds move. Sense as meaning and sense as sensation are etymologically derived from the idea of earlier words meaning to find ones way or to orient oneself (see proto indo-european base **sent-,* which means to go). So spatiality is extremely important if we want to look at sense holistically. If both are minds and our body are *in *sense, that is, if they orient themselves within sense in a holistic manner, then we must think of the mind and body as one entity. I have often used the term “topological body” to refer to this, though it is somewhat misleading. The idea comes from the topology of non-orientable forms in topology, like the mobeius strip and the klein bottle, the definitions of which give us a way of thinking how the outside, physical world, could be continuous to the internal mental world. If one were to stand on a gaint klein bottle's surface, one might get the impression that the ground on which he stands has an other side, below his feet, as it were, when in fact this “other side” is continuous to the “side” he is standing on : the klein bottle only has one side. Likewise, the topological body only has one side. The inside mental space of the subjet extends continuously into the physical world outside. The topological body is thus both mind and body. In my work with Parabolik Guerilla Theatre, I have often treated the question of the difference between “having sense”, that is, merely being determined by the space in which the topological body is embeded, and “making sense”, that is actively participating in the constant reorganization of that space. Merleau-Ponty wrote about the difference between *parole parlée* and *parole parlante* in this way. It is possible to “use” language in a non creative way, whereas it is also possible to create through language, to reveal through language something other than what a word means on a merely semiotic level. This creative use of language is *poïesis*. But this distinction between having sense and making sense extends to areas which we don’t usually call language : gestures also adhere to this principle. The body is constantly involved in automatic gestures, it relies on innumerable unconscious gestures that “make” no sense but have sense, that is, the body is on constantly decoding sense which is already there, inscribed in the repetitive processes which make up our present, inherited from the past. However, there are ways in which the body can attempt to become *poïetic, *and take part in new encodings of sense, create new propagating processes, revealing new meanings, new ways to move, new ways to interact with the world (or be the world). In our practice with Parabolik Guerilla Theatre, Japanese Butoh has been a huge inspiration, and from the very beginning was part of our physical training regimen. Butoh deals with exactly this idea of transcending the usual gestural and postural automatisms that are only decodings of sense. It is and active attempt to not be determined by sense, but actually take part in producing it. The idea of a topological body and of sense as space also ties in with butoh’s sense of the body and space, where the exterior and interior are incessantly forced to exchange places. A common interpretation of butoh is that in it’s practice, the body no longer moves through space but that the reverse is happening, the space moves through the body. I could go on and on about these ideas but I’m already rambling. Renate said at Making Sense colloquium to try to keep our posts short, so I’ll shut-up for now... thanks, alexander wilson -- Alexander Wilson http://www.parabolikguerilla.com http://www.encodagesdeloubli.com ___ empyre forum empyre@lists.cofa.unsw.edu.au http://www.subtle.net/empyre
Re: [-empyre-] Sense as space
Alexander, Thank you for you beautiful message. Most of my work in the last years have been exploring different aspects of the multiple meaning of the word sense, as body apparatus, direction and meaning, with a merleau-pontian inspiration. I'm happy to read what your doing, there's alot of common intuitions. best vibes from Brazil s On Sun, Oct 24, 2010 at 9:01 PM, Alexander Wilson 0...@parabolikguerilla.com wrote: Hello Empyrecists, Thanks Renate for introducing me to the list. Though I have not yet posted, I have been following the discussions for a couple of weeks now. I'd like to write down a few thoughts, post Making Sense Colloquium, and hope they may spark some new tangent discussions. A lot of my theatre and art work has dealt with the idea that sense as in meaning and sense as in sensation, is inherently tied to a third homonym, at least with the french word sens : sense as direction or orientation. This lead me to conceptualize sense as space, space which is not only physical and through which our bodies move, but a heterogeneous space that also includes psychological space, that is, spaces through which our minds move. Sense as meaning and sense as sensation are etymologically derived from the idea of earlier words meaning to find ones way or to orient oneself (see proto indo-european base **sent-,* which means to go). So spatiality is extremely important if we want to look at sense holistically. If both are minds and our body are *in *sense, that is, if they orient themselves within sense in a holistic manner, then we must think of the mind and body as one entity. I have often used the term “topological body” to refer to this, though it is somewhat misleading. The idea comes from the topology of non-orientable forms in topology, like the mobeius strip and the klein bottle, the definitions of which give us a way of thinking how the outside, physical world, could be continuous to the internal mental world. If one were to stand on a gaint klein bottle's surface, one might get the impression that the ground on which he stands has an other side, below his feet, as it were, when in fact this “other side” is continuous to the “side” he is standing on : the klein bottle only has one side. Likewise, the topological body only has one side. The inside mental space of the subjet extends continuously into the physical world outside. The topological body is thus both mind and body. In my work with Parabolik Guerilla Theatre, I have often treated the question of the difference between “having sense”, that is, merely being determined by the space in which the topological body is embeded, and “making sense”, that is actively participating in the constant reorganization of that space. Merleau-Ponty wrote about the difference between *parole parlée* and *parole parlante* in this way. It is possible to “use” language in a non creative way, whereas it is also possible to create through language, to reveal through language something other than what a word means on a merely semiotic level. This creative use of language is *poïesis*. But this distinction between having sense and making sense extends to areas which we don’t usually call language : gestures also adhere to this principle. The body is constantly involved in automatic gestures, it relies on innumerable unconscious gestures that “make” no sense but have sense, that is, the body is on constantly decoding sense which is already there, inscribed in the repetitive processes which make up our present, inherited from the past. However, there are ways in which the body can attempt to become *poïetic, *and take part in new encodings of sense, create new propagating processes, revealing new meanings, new ways to move, new ways to interact with the world (or be the world). In our practice with Parabolik Guerilla Theatre, Japanese Butoh has been a huge inspiration, and from the very beginning was part of our physical training regimen. Butoh deals with exactly this idea of transcending the usual gestural and postural automatisms that are only decodings of sense. It is and active attempt to not be determined by sense, but actually take part in producing it. The idea of a topological body and of sense as space also ties in with butoh’s sense of the body and space, where the exterior and interior are incessantly forced to exchange places. A common interpretation of butoh is that in it’s practice, the body no longer moves through space but that the reverse is happening, the space moves through the body. I could go on and on about these ideas but I’m already rambling. Renate said at Making Sense colloquium to try to keep our posts short, so I’ll shut-up for now... thanks, alexander wilson -- Alexander Wilson http://www.parabolikguerilla.com http://www.encodagesdeloubli.com ___ empyre forum empyre@lists.cofa.unsw.edu.au
