PORTFOLIO (1)
BIO
I think, theorize, and write about highly irrelevant matters.
Re: Re: Deconstruct the Narrative = Protocolian positioning.
Hi Curt,
I guess I should not discount the possibility of such use. However, when you
simply post something artistic for others to read or see, what follows
commonly is an ordinary (logical) discussion. The advantage of this medium
lies more in the interaction, not in the pushing of information. You can
respond to a piece of poem with another piece of poem, but this sort of
practice is not common. One example of emotional exchange that can go on
forever is when an insult is followed by more insults, which is probably a
bit more entertaining than a compliments followed by more compliments.
When someone writes something that is emotionally beautiful, moving, or
powerful, I do not directly respond to the writer other than to compliment
him/her. For the latter, I don't see the point of using this particular
medium.
Regards,
Dyske
> dyske wrote:
> >This email list is a place for discussion. It is not
> >an effective medium to accomplish anything at an >emotional level.
>
> hi dyske,
>
> your assertion sort of sticks in my craw
> http://www.playdamage.org/23.html
>
> i find that words shared in this medium
> http://www.playdamage.org/37.html
>
> can have extraordinary emotional effect
> http://www.brainwashed.com/godspeed/deadmetheney/monologues/deadflag.htm
>
> especially when specifically referencing
> http://www.neuralust.com/~curt/whorl/
>
> other media
> http://www.turbulence.org/Works/arcangel/movies_color/19.mov
>
> I'll go on to say that truly great art crit differentiates itself from
philosophical discourse or political debate by its very willingness and
ability to traffic in the emotional. Lester Bangs approached rock + roll as
confessional literature, and his critical texts read like confessional
literature as rock + roll:
> http://www.harbour.sfu.ca/~hayward/van/reviews/astral.html
>
> everybody is smart; not everybody is brave.
>
> hold you in his arms and you can feel his disease,
> curt
> + ti esrever dna ti pilf nwod gniht ym tup
> -> post: list@rhizome.org
> -> questions: info@rhizome.org
> -> subscribe/unsubscribe: http://rhizome.org/preferences/subscribe.rhiz
> -> give: http://rhizome.org/support
> +
> Subscribers to Rhizome are subject to the terms set out in the
> Membership Agreement available online at http://rhizome.org/info/29.php
>
I guess I should not discount the possibility of such use. However, when you
simply post something artistic for others to read or see, what follows
commonly is an ordinary (logical) discussion. The advantage of this medium
lies more in the interaction, not in the pushing of information. You can
respond to a piece of poem with another piece of poem, but this sort of
practice is not common. One example of emotional exchange that can go on
forever is when an insult is followed by more insults, which is probably a
bit more entertaining than a compliments followed by more compliments.
When someone writes something that is emotionally beautiful, moving, or
powerful, I do not directly respond to the writer other than to compliment
him/her. For the latter, I don't see the point of using this particular
medium.
Regards,
Dyske
> dyske wrote:
> >This email list is a place for discussion. It is not
> >an effective medium to accomplish anything at an >emotional level.
>
> hi dyske,
>
> your assertion sort of sticks in my craw
> http://www.playdamage.org/23.html
>
> i find that words shared in this medium
> http://www.playdamage.org/37.html
>
> can have extraordinary emotional effect
> http://www.brainwashed.com/godspeed/deadmetheney/monologues/deadflag.htm
>
> especially when specifically referencing
> http://www.neuralust.com/~curt/whorl/
>
> other media
> http://www.turbulence.org/Works/arcangel/movies_color/19.mov
>
> I'll go on to say that truly great art crit differentiates itself from
philosophical discourse or political debate by its very willingness and
ability to traffic in the emotional. Lester Bangs approached rock + roll as
confessional literature, and his critical texts read like confessional
literature as rock + roll:
> http://www.harbour.sfu.ca/~hayward/van/reviews/astral.html
>
> everybody is smart; not everybody is brave.
>
> hold you in his arms and you can feel his disease,
> curt
> + ti esrever dna ti pilf nwod gniht ym tup
> -> post: list@rhizome.org
> -> questions: info@rhizome.org
> -> subscribe/unsubscribe: http://rhizome.org/preferences/subscribe.rhiz
> -> give: http://rhizome.org/support
> +
> Subscribers to Rhizome are subject to the terms set out in the
> Membership Agreement available online at http://rhizome.org/info/29.php
>
Re: Re: Deconstruct the Narrative =Protocolianpositioning
Hi Are,
> excitedly shaking the devil's hand. Deconstruction thus does not attempt
to
> exceed the limits of the opposing yet mutually dependent adversaries
(there
> is no escaping the binary), but attempts to analyze the circumstances of
> their appearance and question, if you like, their undivided presence. For
Now I see what you mean by "limits."
But there are two different positions Derrida takes in "Of Grammatology."
In the first part he explains his strategies. In the second part he
demonstrates how they work. Your "limits" applies to the latter. That is
only when he is deconstructing a text himself, your assertion is relevant.
In the first part, however, things are more complex since he must explain
what Deconstruction is without being logocentric himself, because this is
technically impossible. This is where one gets the feeling that he is
pushing the limit of language since he needs devices that can escape the
binary pairs in order to explain the workings of the binarism and
logocentrism, but no such device exists.
> This is very problematic.
What is?
> like and dislike only really have a totalitarian use value.
That is, if you use them in a discourse. And, this is why, for me, to state
likes and dislikes in a discussion is useless. The only way to argue in such
a discussion is for me to adapt a totalitarian position. However, to simply
express your likes and dislikes as a curator, without implying any
authority, is not a totalitarian act, rather it is a personal artistic
expression.
Best Regards,
Dyske
> excitedly shaking the devil's hand. Deconstruction thus does not attempt
to
> exceed the limits of the opposing yet mutually dependent adversaries
(there
> is no escaping the binary), but attempts to analyze the circumstances of
> their appearance and question, if you like, their undivided presence. For
Now I see what you mean by "limits."
But there are two different positions Derrida takes in "Of Grammatology."
In the first part he explains his strategies. In the second part he
demonstrates how they work. Your "limits" applies to the latter. That is
only when he is deconstructing a text himself, your assertion is relevant.
In the first part, however, things are more complex since he must explain
what Deconstruction is without being logocentric himself, because this is
technically impossible. This is where one gets the feeling that he is
pushing the limit of language since he needs devices that can escape the
binary pairs in order to explain the workings of the binarism and
logocentrism, but no such device exists.
> This is very problematic.
What is?
> like and dislike only really have a totalitarian use value.
That is, if you use them in a discourse. And, this is why, for me, to state
likes and dislikes in a discussion is useless. The only way to argue in such
a discussion is for me to adapt a totalitarian position. However, to simply
express your likes and dislikes as a curator, without implying any
authority, is not a totalitarian act, rather it is a personal artistic
expression.
Best Regards,
Dyske
Re: Deconstruct the Narrative = Protocolian positioning.
Hi Marc,
<quote>
What I am trying to question (and may be this still is not clear). Is the
hierarchical positioning of logic over intimacy, emotion, and intuitiveness.
A mixture, and more as far as I am concerned, would be more appropriate when
dealing with humane situations and creative endevour. I would advocate this,
even the realm of science...
I am actively involved in being changed by others all of the time, I listen
to them and see who they really are, when I am allowed to. This is what is
missing in logic, it cannot appreciate human potential intuitively...
</quote>
I get the feeling that you are the one who is giving logic too much credit.
Your last sentence, I think, is very revealing of this. If you simply
reverse what you said, this is what you get:
"This is what is missing in emotion; it cannot figure out mathematical
problems."
Now, what would urge someone to make this assertion? Most of us would
respond to this by saying, "Of course it can't. Why should it figure out
mathematical problems? That is not what emotion is for."
The same goes for your statement. Why should logic be able to appreciate
human potential intuitively? Why do you even expect it to?
You seem to identify yourself with your own thoughts. That is, your own
image of yourself consists so much of your own thoughts and intelligence
that you wish, or you feel like your thoughts (logic) should be able to
appreciate human potential, just as someone who is full of emotion and not
much of logical capacity would wish that emotion can solve mathematical
problems.
You also seem to have strong feelings, verging on paranoia, towards
academics. Why do you think that logic is so powerful that it can almost
control the whole world? Have you tried to pick up a girl at a bar with your
logical prowess? Does logic do anything for you to accomplish such a
trifling task? If logic is useless in something as trifling as this, why do
you think that it could do much to control the world?
The reason is, if I may speculate, because you are yourself susceptible to
it, and that in turn is because you identify yourself with your own logical
prowess.
Your analysis of "academic" versus "intellectual" is not something I can
argue constructively. What you mean by "academic" is a certain form of
naivete, lack of real life knowledge. This too is like "sincerity" or
"willingness". If a piece of writing seems naive to you, there isn't
anything I can say about that. If someone said that your writing is naive or
academic, then how would you prove that it is not? Suppose I take a copy of
your essay to the streets in my neighborhood, have 10 random people read it
(fireman, policeman, grocery store clerk, my apartment super, gas stand
attendant, etc..), and ask if they think your essay is "academic", I'm
almost willing to bet you that all of them would say "Yes". Some of them
might even say it after reading just the title "Established
culturalization."
If you are interested in how these "academic" ideas are transformed into
forces that can effect changes in our society, I would recommend reading
"Negotiations" by Derrida. Here he employs his own philosophy to the real
world problems. Some of the pieces are actual letters he sent to effect
these changes (Letter to Bill Clinton regarding Mumia Abu-Jamal and death
penalty in America). Some are transcripts of lectures and talks he gave on
various political issues. Derrida is probably one of the most politically
involved philosophers around.
I am not going to argue with you about what Deconstruction is. I don't feel
that it would be constructive. I fear that I would simply be accused of
being academic. However, I would like to simply state my sentiment on what
you have expressed about it. I actually see that you are misunderstanding
what Deconstruction is. I feel that your own criticism of Deconstruction is
in fact closer to what Deconstruction is than what you are stating what
Deconstruction is. That is to say, you are barking up the wrong tree. In a
way, Deconstruction is there to protect you from the tyranny of logic. It is
not your enemy.
On a more personal note:
I am not interested in refuting and destroying your arguments. I understand
your general sentiments, and I do respect what you do and what you strive
for. We are in general on the same side, but that does not mean that there
is nothing to discuss. This email list is a place for discussion. It is not
an effective medium to accomplish anything at an emotional level. So, what I
try to do is to discuss. This does not mean that I have no respect for you
as a person, or that I dismiss your feelings. It is just that this is not
the place to accomplish such things. I only try to do appropriate things in
appropriate contexts. I prefer not to mix things up. So, naturally all you
know of me is the logical side, but you seem to be painting a picture of me
being like Spock.
Best Regards,
Dyske
<quote>
What I am trying to question (and may be this still is not clear). Is the
hierarchical positioning of logic over intimacy, emotion, and intuitiveness.
A mixture, and more as far as I am concerned, would be more appropriate when
dealing with humane situations and creative endevour. I would advocate this,
even the realm of science...
I am actively involved in being changed by others all of the time, I listen
to them and see who they really are, when I am allowed to. This is what is
missing in logic, it cannot appreciate human potential intuitively...
</quote>
I get the feeling that you are the one who is giving logic too much credit.
Your last sentence, I think, is very revealing of this. If you simply
reverse what you said, this is what you get:
"This is what is missing in emotion; it cannot figure out mathematical
problems."
Now, what would urge someone to make this assertion? Most of us would
respond to this by saying, "Of course it can't. Why should it figure out
mathematical problems? That is not what emotion is for."
The same goes for your statement. Why should logic be able to appreciate
human potential intuitively? Why do you even expect it to?
You seem to identify yourself with your own thoughts. That is, your own
image of yourself consists so much of your own thoughts and intelligence
that you wish, or you feel like your thoughts (logic) should be able to
appreciate human potential, just as someone who is full of emotion and not
much of logical capacity would wish that emotion can solve mathematical
problems.
You also seem to have strong feelings, verging on paranoia, towards
academics. Why do you think that logic is so powerful that it can almost
control the whole world? Have you tried to pick up a girl at a bar with your
logical prowess? Does logic do anything for you to accomplish such a
trifling task? If logic is useless in something as trifling as this, why do
you think that it could do much to control the world?
The reason is, if I may speculate, because you are yourself susceptible to
it, and that in turn is because you identify yourself with your own logical
prowess.
Your analysis of "academic" versus "intellectual" is not something I can
argue constructively. What you mean by "academic" is a certain form of
naivete, lack of real life knowledge. This too is like "sincerity" or
"willingness". If a piece of writing seems naive to you, there isn't
anything I can say about that. If someone said that your writing is naive or
academic, then how would you prove that it is not? Suppose I take a copy of
your essay to the streets in my neighborhood, have 10 random people read it
(fireman, policeman, grocery store clerk, my apartment super, gas stand
attendant, etc..), and ask if they think your essay is "academic", I'm
almost willing to bet you that all of them would say "Yes". Some of them
might even say it after reading just the title "Established
culturalization."
If you are interested in how these "academic" ideas are transformed into
forces that can effect changes in our society, I would recommend reading
"Negotiations" by Derrida. Here he employs his own philosophy to the real
world problems. Some of the pieces are actual letters he sent to effect
these changes (Letter to Bill Clinton regarding Mumia Abu-Jamal and death
penalty in America). Some are transcripts of lectures and talks he gave on
various political issues. Derrida is probably one of the most politically
involved philosophers around.
I am not going to argue with you about what Deconstruction is. I don't feel
that it would be constructive. I fear that I would simply be accused of
being academic. However, I would like to simply state my sentiment on what
you have expressed about it. I actually see that you are misunderstanding
what Deconstruction is. I feel that your own criticism of Deconstruction is
in fact closer to what Deconstruction is than what you are stating what
Deconstruction is. That is to say, you are barking up the wrong tree. In a
way, Deconstruction is there to protect you from the tyranny of logic. It is
not your enemy.
On a more personal note:
I am not interested in refuting and destroying your arguments. I understand
your general sentiments, and I do respect what you do and what you strive
for. We are in general on the same side, but that does not mean that there
is nothing to discuss. This email list is a place for discussion. It is not
an effective medium to accomplish anything at an emotional level. So, what I
try to do is to discuss. This does not mean that I have no respect for you
as a person, or that I dismiss your feelings. It is just that this is not
the place to accomplish such things. I only try to do appropriate things in
appropriate contexts. I prefer not to mix things up. So, naturally all you
know of me is the logical side, but you seem to be painting a picture of me
being like Spock.
Best Regards,
Dyske
Re: Deconstruct the Narrative = Protocolian positioning.
> But this is where the issue of my argument lies.
> To be relaint on the 'masculine' induced logic cannot bring about
productive
> change, it is a very small part of the learning process and 'suppozed'
> development of humanity.
Hi Marc,
I suppose you mean productive change in the conviction or belief of other
people, not in our society. If you are speaking of the latter, think of how
many products of induced logic has changed our society, many of them in a
productive way, like a concept of democracy, electricity, Internet, etc..
What I was expressing in my unwillingness to logically argue about my
sincerity is that there are appropriate places to use logic and there are
inappropriate places. Issues such as my sincerity in that context is not an
appropriate place for logic to come in. This does not mean that you should
entirely dismiss logic to be ineffective for any change.
If you are speaking of the change in the convictions and beliefs of others,
the very position of trying to actively change others is what is
"masculine." I do not particularly endorse this position. If you are a great
person, others will be inspired to change. Many people who came across my
life inspired me to change, though they had no intention of changing me. In
this sense, all you need to do in your life to effect change in others is
for you to be the greatest person that you can be. You do not have to be
actively involved in changing others, though I do not condemn those who do.
-Dyske
> To be relaint on the 'masculine' induced logic cannot bring about
productive
> change, it is a very small part of the learning process and 'suppozed'
> development of humanity.
Hi Marc,
I suppose you mean productive change in the conviction or belief of other
people, not in our society. If you are speaking of the latter, think of how
many products of induced logic has changed our society, many of them in a
productive way, like a concept of democracy, electricity, Internet, etc..
What I was expressing in my unwillingness to logically argue about my
sincerity is that there are appropriate places to use logic and there are
inappropriate places. Issues such as my sincerity in that context is not an
appropriate place for logic to come in. This does not mean that you should
entirely dismiss logic to be ineffective for any change.
If you are speaking of the change in the convictions and beliefs of others,
the very position of trying to actively change others is what is
"masculine." I do not particularly endorse this position. If you are a great
person, others will be inspired to change. Many people who came across my
life inspired me to change, though they had no intention of changing me. In
this sense, all you need to do in your life to effect change in others is
for you to be the greatest person that you can be. You do not have to be
actively involved in changing others, though I do not condemn those who do.
-Dyske
Re: Re: Deconstruct the Narrative = Protocolianpositioning
Hi Fee,
I'm going to skip your first question about four dimensional thinking. I
think Are is the qualified person to answer that one.
I would say that binary thinking is not a specific type of thinking;
binarism is what allows us to think. In my view (deviating from Derrida),
what allows us to see binary oppositions is the distinction of the "I" from
the world, that is, our conceptions of who we are and what the world is.
Once our minds make this split, seeing ourselves to be separate from the
world, everything else starts to split. Without this split of the "I" and
the world, we cannot think. Whatever I think or interpret about the world is
already part of who I am, yet we insist on separating the two. Every binary
opposition has the same dilemma. One side is incapable of establishing its
presence without the other, so it is either that none exists, or as Zen
would put it, that "all is one."
In response to your comments regarding unlearning of history:
What I mean by "unlearning" isn't exactly to escape or go outside of
history. As I stated before, this is impossible. Whatever you do or utter is
built on history. What I mean by "unlearn" applies only to your drive as an
artist. That is, your "heart" should be the drive rather than history. As
you pointed out yourself, in some ways, studying art history and theories at
a young age when you are still impressionable is more likely to damage this
drive than it is to benefit.
Marc wrote in his essay: "So net/web artists will be sculpted to adhere to
certain agendas, just like what was perceived as traditional before the
Internet age."
This is true. In fact, this has been going on for at least a century, but
let's ask: Why would artists be sculpted to adhere just because the
institutions of art have certain agendas? It is because artists want to be
recognized by them. Why would they want to be recognized by them? It is
because these institutions are centers of the structure of the art world by
which something as subjective and elusive as art can be fixed and
stabilized. The result of this stabilization is art history.
The artists are "sculpted" because they are driven by their desire to be
recognized in history. If their drives were their own hearts, then they will
not be sculpted (they could care less what the agendas of these institutions
are.). If this is your drive, then studying art history or theories would
not be harmful; it could only benefit your art.
Because of this drive to be historically recognized, they end up
reverse-engineering history. They try to figure out the methods of these
institutions and apply them to their own work, thereby alienating themselves
from their own work. If the artists are being sculpted, it is just as much
their own fault as it is the insititutions'. One's criticism towards the
institutional agendas will only prove one's own drive to be recognized in
history. As long as we support the institutions of art to be the central
structure to define historical significance, this vicious cycle will keep on
spinning. If we wish to end this cycle, these institutions must abandon
their claim to historical significance, which is to say, "We like this," and
nothing more. This will decenter the structure of the art world, and
everything will be subjective and elusive, as art naturally is. Then the
artists won't be able to reverse-engineer history.
But realistically speaking, this will not happen, especially in the West
where logocentrism is deep-seated. Despite the efforts of
post-structuralists, it would probably take a century or more for the
awareness of logocentrism to permeate through the western culture at large.
"Apart from anything else I agree with Jess Loseby in that so much of it is
goddam visually unapealling"
This is a type of comment that is pervasive in today's art world where
people make an overarching judgment of taste. It does nothing more than to
assert the commentator's superiority. Since this is a matter of taste, there
is nothing constructive that we can do with such statements, yet we hear
this everywhere. The only way such statements can be constructive is if the
taste were a matter of absolutes. Again, this is a manifestation of our
logocentrism at work, our desire to center and fix elusive matters that do
not require such effort.
-Dyske
I'm going to skip your first question about four dimensional thinking. I
think Are is the qualified person to answer that one.
I would say that binary thinking is not a specific type of thinking;
binarism is what allows us to think. In my view (deviating from Derrida),
what allows us to see binary oppositions is the distinction of the "I" from
the world, that is, our conceptions of who we are and what the world is.
Once our minds make this split, seeing ourselves to be separate from the
world, everything else starts to split. Without this split of the "I" and
the world, we cannot think. Whatever I think or interpret about the world is
already part of who I am, yet we insist on separating the two. Every binary
opposition has the same dilemma. One side is incapable of establishing its
presence without the other, so it is either that none exists, or as Zen
would put it, that "all is one."
In response to your comments regarding unlearning of history:
What I mean by "unlearning" isn't exactly to escape or go outside of
history. As I stated before, this is impossible. Whatever you do or utter is
built on history. What I mean by "unlearn" applies only to your drive as an
artist. That is, your "heart" should be the drive rather than history. As
you pointed out yourself, in some ways, studying art history and theories at
a young age when you are still impressionable is more likely to damage this
drive than it is to benefit.
Marc wrote in his essay: "So net/web artists will be sculpted to adhere to
certain agendas, just like what was perceived as traditional before the
Internet age."
This is true. In fact, this has been going on for at least a century, but
let's ask: Why would artists be sculpted to adhere just because the
institutions of art have certain agendas? It is because artists want to be
recognized by them. Why would they want to be recognized by them? It is
because these institutions are centers of the structure of the art world by
which something as subjective and elusive as art can be fixed and
stabilized. The result of this stabilization is art history.
The artists are "sculpted" because they are driven by their desire to be
recognized in history. If their drives were their own hearts, then they will
not be sculpted (they could care less what the agendas of these institutions
are.). If this is your drive, then studying art history or theories would
not be harmful; it could only benefit your art.
Because of this drive to be historically recognized, they end up
reverse-engineering history. They try to figure out the methods of these
institutions and apply them to their own work, thereby alienating themselves
from their own work. If the artists are being sculpted, it is just as much
their own fault as it is the insititutions'. One's criticism towards the
institutional agendas will only prove one's own drive to be recognized in
history. As long as we support the institutions of art to be the central
structure to define historical significance, this vicious cycle will keep on
spinning. If we wish to end this cycle, these institutions must abandon
their claim to historical significance, which is to say, "We like this," and
nothing more. This will decenter the structure of the art world, and
everything will be subjective and elusive, as art naturally is. Then the
artists won't be able to reverse-engineer history.
But realistically speaking, this will not happen, especially in the West
where logocentrism is deep-seated. Despite the efforts of
post-structuralists, it would probably take a century or more for the
awareness of logocentrism to permeate through the western culture at large.
"Apart from anything else I agree with Jess Loseby in that so much of it is
goddam visually unapealling"
This is a type of comment that is pervasive in today's art world where
people make an overarching judgment of taste. It does nothing more than to
assert the commentator's superiority. Since this is a matter of taste, there
is nothing constructive that we can do with such statements, yet we hear
this everywhere. The only way such statements can be constructive is if the
taste were a matter of absolutes. Again, this is a manifestation of our
logocentrism at work, our desire to center and fix elusive matters that do
not require such effort.
-Dyske