<documenta X><blast> dot23
Jaakko Hucklebee (jessec@zipnet.net)
Mon, 08 Sep 1997 03:41:22 -0400
There is often a debate about who or what is postmodern. What was the
first postmodern document? A list might include the First Amendment of
the United States Constitution; especially its provision guarantying
Freedom of Speech. Thus, anyone can say anything they want to say. It
is believed that a person has a right to mis-take anything. One may
call Antigone stupid or atheism evil or praise Hitler in public with
full legal protection. What is not permitted is to misquote someone
else, to mis-take another person, to not care if you harm someone
wrongly. This is slander, this is unlawful and immoral. I protest when I
am mis-taken, I may even be mimetic for revenge. But what is it that is
missed in mis-taking? Or are there no mis- takes at this point in an art
forum as an art form?
A philosophy which explodes the layering of Lacan--indeed all
historical layering--in favor of a more open and diverse understanding
of aspects will, then, accept more positions as correct in special
regards, in brackets. A religious mythology for those sick at heart, who
so desire to get down on their knees and pray to God, has a space. As
does post-religious ethics. A space for completely crazy people must be
defined in psychology, also. I have no problem with including Bracha's
space for prebirth incest if it serves some purpose for her. This is a
more diverse explanation of the way things are because it includes more
points. It could include a pigeon hole for Lyotard as well as Lacan or
anyone else. I see a boarder space with tit for tat and straight
negative game theory as well as the more preferable altruist strategy,
and penises float around too, and Woman. Whatever.
Given such freedom, to take is to mis-take. Often, though, it is
not necessary to take a position. It serves no use. I advise to be
loving, to be helpful or critique and destroy in a loop of love sounds
irresistible!; but not to slander me rather than asking me what I mean!
I may have a point of particular aesthetic use though not generally and
universally true. You may simply ask me what I mean. It's that simple.
There is a copyright and slander torts which humor, as art, may ignore.
(I imagine hundreds of people have written something like this)
This point of historical change is threatening to many people, I
realize that. The flat space supported by postmodern theory destroys
depth psychology in favor of juxtaposition. Everything being spread out
like stars in an equivalent universe rather than being causal in 4D. It
destroys a life of work based on Lacan, for example. This is no excuse
to slander me. I who am only loving?
In short, general rules only apply where they generally apply, and
specific rules apply where they specifically apply. Finally, the
general rules do not override the specific rules unless they do. It's
rather like there is an art to life. No more. No one position is correct
or right forever unless it turns out to be. Nobody knows it all. There
are things I will not do: these are the things that give me writer's
block.
It's like one must go through all these rules of postmodern order
in order to develop a discussion about changing space in an online
forum, but someone will always get hung up on their own rep rather than
the discussion or the goal. Especially, people who will do anything
rather than discuss space change will seek to change the topic. Which
brings us back to the First Amendment. But, then, it is sort of a
commedia dell'arte to hire moderators to slander unlikely participants.
Of course I would not do it this way. I'd rather take a topic, say
changing space, and discuss that, rather than exactly what so and so
said some years ago. Yet, this isn't about what I do at all! Even if I
did make a point, it seems it would change right away. Interesting? I
wouldn't think that it would be of interest to more than a small group
of people? And as a joke.
Why is that? Could it be that we don't do things without credits? Ok,
here is a social-capital credit. It isn't defined presently just what
such a non-commodity as a social-capital credit is to be taken as or for
though. Yet, I think that this is unavoidably the future. Or is it
passed now? I do have a website, does that matter?
Hucklebee
--
-------------------------------------------------------------
a forum on spatial articulations, perspectives, and procedures
texts are the property of individual authors
for information, email majordomo@forum.documenta.de with
the following line in the message body: info blast
archive at http://www.documenta.de/english/blasta.htm
or http://www.documenta.de/deutsch/blasta.htm
documenta X Kassel and http://www.documenta.de 1997
-------------------------------------------------------------