Comments for square white world http://squarewhiteworld.com work pieces by simon taylor Fri, 21 Aug 2009 00:33:30 +0000 http://wordpress.org/?v=2.9.2 hourly 1 Comment on theatricalisation of everyday life: theatrum mundi by Uri Khein http://squarewhiteworld.com/2009/08/18/theatricalisation-of-everyday-life-theatrum-mundi/comment-page-1/#comment-13500 Uri Khein Fri, 21 Aug 2009 00:33:30 +0000 http://squarewhiteworld.com/2009/08/18/theatricalisation-of-everyday-life-theatrum-mundi/#comment-13500 I was missing something. Wonderful. Hence, above. More to say on your second later. I was missing something. Wonderful. Hence, above. More to say on your second later.

]]> Comment on theatricalisation of everyday life: theatrum mundi by simon http://squarewhiteworld.com/2009/08/18/theatricalisation-of-everyday-life-theatrum-mundi/comment-page-1/#comment-13499 simon Thu, 20 Aug 2009 21:54:24 +0000 http://squarewhiteworld.com/2009/08/18/theatricalisation-of-everyday-life-theatrum-mundi/#comment-13499 which is further to say that such momentum as performance picks up from critical theory is fixed at the subrepresentational stage of performance itself, theatre always being first and foremost its own best diagnostician. (This is why bad theatre really tells you how bad things can get, that they can get worse, i.e. ATC's production of God of Carnage.) Theatre's power as metaphor, its virtual immanence derives from theatricality and the Kantian theatricalised conscience of the image of thought, its moral huing and crying, gives rise to a critique which however solid and stately cannot get behind the curtain. Hence, a critical theory exacerbating a movement already incepted, intercepting it with a shrill scepticism, like a whistle on the sideline. If the performance is already the diagnostic, these 'reflectivie intricacies' are already in its affect, made mobile in the fix of it, affixed or inflected, and 'those intricacies' effect performance such that the image of thought is the extrapolation, makes representation. So the theatricalisation of everyday life may be the sum effect of the sinking of every metanarrative - even to and including that of the transcendental subject - below the surface of representation, with its critique. I.e. the critique is not critical enough. which is further to say that such momentum as performance picks up from critical theory is fixed at the subrepresentational stage of performance itself, theatre always being first and foremost its own best diagnostician. (This is why bad theatre really tells you how bad things can get, that they can get worse, i.e. ATC’s production of God of Carnage.) Theatre’s power as metaphor, its virtual immanence derives from theatricality and the Kantian theatricalised conscience of the image of thought, its moral huing and crying, gives rise to a critique which however solid and stately cannot get behind the curtain. Hence, a critical theory exacerbating a movement already incepted, intercepting it with a shrill scepticism, like a whistle on the sideline. If the performance is already the diagnostic, these ‘reflectivie intricacies’ are already in its affect, made mobile in the fix of it, affixed or inflected, and ‘those intricacies’ effect performance such that the image of thought is the extrapolation, makes representation. So the theatricalisation of everyday life may be the sum effect of the sinking of every metanarrative – even to and including that of the transcendental subject – below the surface of representation, with its critique. I.e. the critique is not critical enough.

]]> Comment on theatricalisation of everyday life: theatrum mundi by simon http://squarewhiteworld.com/2009/08/18/theatricalisation-of-everyday-life-theatrum-mundi/comment-page-1/#comment-13498 simon Thu, 20 Aug 2009 11:54:41 +0000 http://squarewhiteworld.com/2009/08/18/theatricalisation-of-everyday-life-theatrum-mundi/#comment-13498 the unleashing of all manner of miniature egos across the various divides, figuring large, the subject/object divide, the slippages of shifters, signifiers, I's and You's, and 'its;' the latter in place as if placed there, staged, as contemplative souls of the matters in hand, passing hand to hand, hand to mouth, mouth to ... and so on... Blau's viewpoint here is of one across the theatrical divide contemplating the metaphoricity of theatre. It is a theatrical one. And as you can see, the body swells; the performance is all inside; there is no leverage against the slippage, the selvedge; the outside escapes without comment. The surface is unharmed... not a ripple. the unleashing of all manner of miniature egos across the various divides, figuring large, the subject/object divide, the slippages of shifters, signifiers, I’s and You’s, and ‘its;’ the latter in place as if placed there, staged, as contemplative souls of the matters in hand, passing hand to hand, hand to mouth, mouth to … and so on… Blau’s viewpoint here is of one across the theatrical divide contemplating the metaphoricity of theatre. It is a theatrical one. And as you can see, the body swells; the performance is all inside; there is no leverage against the slippage, the selvedge; the outside escapes without comment. The surface is unharmed… not a ripple.

]]> Comment on theatricalisation of everyday life: theatrum mundi by Uri Khein http://squarewhiteworld.com/2009/08/18/theatricalisation-of-everyday-life-theatrum-mundi/comment-page-1/#comment-13496 Uri Khein Tue, 18 Aug 2009 10:30:09 +0000 http://squarewhiteworld.com/2009/08/18/theatricalisation-of-everyday-life-theatrum-mundi/#comment-13496 In what manner does performance "pick up momentum from critical theory?" How do those reflective intricacies affect performance? Is performance an extrapolation, an advocation of those intricacies? Am I missing something? In what manner does performance “pick up momentum from critical theory?” How do those reflective intricacies affect performance? Is performance an extrapolation, an advocation of those intricacies? Am I missing something?

]]> Comment on ἀλήθεια &: or, why Deleuze gave up depths in favour of transversality or a big tablecloth; or once we admit all possible worlds we find compassion for things we’ll never know by Play http://squarewhiteworld.com/2009/03/15/%e1%bc%80%ce%bb%ce%ae%ce%b8%ce%b5%ce%b9%ce%b1-or-once-we-admit-all-possible-worlds-we-find-compassion-for-things-we/comment-page-1/#comment-13470 Play Sun, 15 Mar 2009 16:28:43 +0000 http://squarewhiteworld.com/2009/03/15/%e1%bc%80%ce%bb%ce%ae%ce%b8%ce%b5%ce%b9%ce%b1-or-once-we-admit-all-possible-worlds-we-find-compassion-for-things-we/#comment-13470 Well said. I always feel I am on the verge of being “in over my head” when it comes to talking philosophy, which is an interesting experience, so I’m going to venture to comment: It seems to me that in /Ages of the World/ (2nd draft), Schelling pre-hearses many of your (turning) points /and/ maybe offers another way of resolving the problem that it seems to me you are rehearsing, which I think Schelling would consider the problem of freedom in the face of eternity: If (as Bryant is currently saying in his blog) being is nothing more than differences, and every difference determines other differences, then (Schelling asks) what stops these differences from determining each other in eternal circles and driving God insane? Or to put it a different way, how can the subject be free if freedom is an infinite abyss and difference is something that God, the first subject, cannot access? In Schelling’s philosophy, God, perhaps motivated by the intensity of being on the verge of madness from the rotation of difference-determining differences, chooses to separate the past from the present, thus creating measured time and resolving the vicious cycling. Thank God! God invents existence to which the past will be the ground. With this separation, Schelling is able to conceive of matter as an encounter between differing forces, the texture, weight, fluidity and other qualities of material objects determined by the conflict between those forces. Your solution, as articulated by Deleuze, to what I think is the problem of freedom, repetition providing the time of difference, may make matter and freedom possible /and/ Schelling’s theory may suggest another solution. I turn now from Schelling to my experience: It seems to me that in the encounter between two or more people who are playing together, a constellation of points are defined beyond which what is currently playable would be unplayable, and the play would come to an end. In my experience, when people play together, they tend to play right up to, without allowing themselves to reach, the threshold to what, for them, would be unplayable. As I see it, playing right at the edge of what is playable increases the intensity of the play, and intensities in the play give us access to difference that differs from itself, the difference “by which the given is given as diverse.” In play, I believe there is a process of selection that makes freedom possible in the midst of nothing but differences. Perhaps what I am calling a second solution is just another version of what I am calling the first solution: By selecting what is playable and defining our singular thresholds to the unplayable, generating intensities through which we access difference, we may be making the move Schelling has God make when God creates a line that the past can never cross (the past preceding God’s invention of the present and remaining always ever the past), but which the subject crisscrosses, repetition in existence supplying the time of difference in the ground. Well said. I always feel I am on the verge of being “in over my head” when it comes to talking philosophy, which is an interesting experience, so I’m going to venture to comment: It seems to me that in /Ages of the World/ (2nd draft), Schelling pre-hearses many of your (turning) points /and/ maybe offers another way of resolving the problem that it seems to me you are rehearsing, which I think Schelling would consider the problem of freedom in the face of eternity: If (as Bryant is currently saying in his blog) being is nothing more than differences, and every difference determines other differences, then (Schelling asks) what stops these differences from determining each other in eternal circles and driving God insane? Or to put it a different way, how can the subject be free if freedom is an infinite abyss and difference is something that God, the first subject, cannot access? In Schelling’s philosophy, God, perhaps motivated by the intensity of being on the verge of madness from the rotation of difference-determining differences, chooses to separate the past from the present, thus creating measured time and resolving the vicious cycling. Thank God! God invents existence to which the past will be the ground. With this separation, Schelling is able to conceive of matter as an encounter between differing forces, the texture, weight, fluidity and other qualities of material objects determined by the conflict between those forces. Your solution, as articulated by Deleuze, to what I think is the problem of freedom, repetition providing the time of difference, may make matter and freedom possible /and/ Schelling’s theory may suggest another solution. I turn now from Schelling to my experience: It seems to me that in the encounter between two or more people who are playing together, a constellation of points are defined beyond which what is currently playable would be unplayable, and the play would come to an end. In my experience, when people play together, they tend to play right up to, without allowing themselves to reach, the threshold to what, for them, would be unplayable. As I see it, playing right at the edge of what is playable increases the intensity of the play, and intensities in the play give us access to difference that differs from itself, the difference “by which the given is given as diverse.” In play, I believe there is a process of selection that makes freedom possible in the midst of nothing but differences. Perhaps what I am calling a second solution is just another version of what I am calling the first solution: By selecting what is playable and defining our singular thresholds to the unplayable, generating intensities through which we access difference, we may be making the move Schelling has God make when God creates a line that the past can never cross (the past preceding God’s invention of the present and remaining always ever the past), but which the subject crisscrosses, repetition in existence supplying the time of difference in the ground.

]]> Comment on Big Russian I by ouarsenis http://squarewhiteworld.com/2008/11/29/big-russian-i/comment-page-1/#comment-6251 ouarsenis Fri, 05 Dec 2008 11:44:00 +0000 http://squarewhiteworld.com/2008/11/29/big-russian-i/#comment-6251 smart idea to draw this picture... i like to call it Genius boy smart idea to draw this picture… i like to call it Genius boy

]]> Comment on an irrational swing by Matt Rad http://squarewhiteworld.com/2008/10/28/an-irrational-swing/comment-page-1/#comment-5467 Matt Rad Thu, 06 Nov 2008 14:38:53 +0000 http://squarewhiteworld.com/2008/10/28/an-irrational-swing/#comment-5467 Ixion like a lion in Zion! When will people get it that Friedman was a hack? You should never believe what an economist tells you - mostly because they have the sense not to believe it themselves. Blind faith in free-market Darwinism just predisposes us to the belief that because it is 'natural' to let these things sort themselves out, that it must be good. I am pretty sure that nature is a hideous beast that often results in things getting eaten alive and gored and that such a way of running an economy or a society is similarly brutal. I foam! Can't wait to see JK as king, though - you mean John Kirwan, right? Or Justin Kingston? Jeremy Koney? Judge Kredd? Jacky Khan? Jesus Khrist?!?!? Ixion like a lion in Zion!

When will people get it that Friedman was a hack? You should never believe what an economist tells you – mostly because they have the sense not to believe it themselves.

Blind faith in free-market Darwinism just predisposes us to the belief that because it is ‘natural’ to let these things sort themselves out, that it must be good. I am pretty sure that nature is a hideous beast that often results in things getting eaten alive and gored and that such a way of running an economy or a society is similarly brutal. I foam!

Can’t wait to see JK as king, though – you mean John Kirwan, right? Or Justin Kingston? Jeremy Koney? Judge Kredd? Jacky Khan?

Jesus Khrist?!?!?

]]> Comment on working @ PACE: day 11, On Applied Theatre and Process Drama & why I won’t be applying or processing & what a small theatre group called T-Cell is for by Michael http://squarewhiteworld.com/2008/05/23/working-pace-day-11-on-applied-theatre-and-process-drama-why-i-wont-be-applying-or-processing-what-a-small-theatre-group-called-t-cell-is-for/comment-page-1/#comment-2088 Michael Sat, 31 May 2008 03:03:26 +0000 http://squarewhiteworld.com/2008/05/23/working-pace-day-11-on-applied-theatre-and-process-drama-why-i-wont-be-applying-or-processing-what-a-small-theatre-group-called-t-cell-is-for/#comment-2088 Simon, I am contemplating the start of a blog, and this topic is at the top of my list right now. I googled the blogs for "psychodrama" references so that I might see where the collective consciousness stands at this point. I've personally experienced applied psychodrama in a couple of different settings, alas, as an unsuspecting participant. It can be a bit unnerving, to say the least. I'll leave some info here, then hopefully crosslink this page with my own when I get it up and going. The first time, was at a weekend religious retreat, a 'Walk To Emmaus' back in 1998, or so. A second time, was again in a church/religious setting. The third time was with a group of trial lawyers, http://www.themaclawyer.com/the_mac_lawyer/2008/03/thoughts-about.html "Kern Lewis from Foreman, Lewis & Hutchison-tools and equipment used by him and his firm; brief example of the "pscyho-drama" technique used by Gerry Spence's Trial Lawyers College; and how to find the story / theme of your case and then translate that information into a Keynote presentation, which can be used during opening and closing statements at trial." and finally the last time (I believe) was during this lecture on "NeuroLaw" http://www.mindscience.org/events/speaker_bios/eagleman.html (this mp3 is almost the same exact lecture, from one month earlier) http://neuro.bcm.edu/eagleman/Media/Eagleman%20Neuroscience%20and%20Law.mp3 There seemed to be common themes, even boilerplate language that I picked up on. What I find troubling is: Intially touted for theraputic use, psychodrama, sociometrics, and priming associative neuro networks with words/images seems to have crept into the corporate boardrooms, houses of worship and now it's working it's way into our legal justice system. If it were unobtrusive, it might not be so terrible. But invasive, suggestive...even coercive elements from other disciplines are mixed together: trigger words/priming language used in a presentation...agents/actors randomly blending in with the unwitting attendees, I assume to facilitate particular outcomes...their identities camouflaged and authenticity assumed. Michael Simon,

I am contemplating the start of a blog, and this topic is at the top of my list right now. I googled the blogs for “psychodrama” references so that I might see where the collective consciousness stands at this point.

I’ve personally experienced applied psychodrama in a couple of different settings, alas, as an unsuspecting participant. It can be a bit unnerving, to say the least. I’ll leave some info here, then hopefully crosslink this page with my own when I get it up and going.

The first time, was at a weekend religious retreat, a ‘Walk To Emmaus’ back in 1998, or so. A second time, was again in a church/religious setting. The third time was with a group of trial lawyers,

http://www.themaclawyer.com/the_mac_lawyer/2008/03/thoughts-about.html

“Kern Lewis from Foreman, Lewis & Hutchison-tools and equipment used by him and his firm; brief example of the “pscyho-drama” technique used by Gerry Spence’s Trial Lawyers College; and how to find the story / theme of your case and then translate that information into a Keynote presentation, which can be used during opening and closing statements at trial.”

and finally the last time (I believe) was during this lecture on “NeuroLaw”

http://www.mindscience.org/events/speaker_bios/eagleman.html

(this mp3 is almost the same exact lecture, from one month earlier)
http://neuro.bcm.edu/eagleman/Media/Eagleman%20Neuroscience%20and%20Law.mp3

There seemed to be common themes, even boilerplate language that I picked up on.
What I find troubling is: Intially touted for theraputic use, psychodrama, sociometrics, and priming associative neuro networks with words/images seems to have crept into the corporate boardrooms, houses of worship and now it’s working it’s way into our legal justice system. If it were unobtrusive, it might not be so terrible.

But invasive, suggestive…even coercive elements from other disciplines are mixed together: trigger words/priming language used in a presentation…agents/actors randomly blending in with the unwitting attendees, I assume to facilitate particular outcomes…their identities camouflaged and authenticity assumed.

Michael

]]> Comment on GUSANOS ii by Louise E http://squarewhiteworld.com/2008/03/13/gusanos-ii/comment-page-1/#comment-1859 Louise E Wed, 26 Mar 2008 01:12:04 +0000 http://squarewhiteworld.com/2008/03/13/gusanos-ii/#comment-1859 no truer word! it is true that trauma cannot be closed from the brain. thank you for posting this. no truer word!
it is true that trauma cannot be closed from the brain.
thank you for posting this.

]]> Comment on not a who’s Huse by Tiffany http://squarewhiteworld.com/2008/02/12/not-a-whos-huse/comment-page-1/#comment-1691 Tiffany Thu, 14 Feb 2008 01:12:14 +0000 http://squarewhiteworld.com/2008/02/12/not-a-whos-huse/#comment-1691 Bravo Simon, I haven't seen the show but was appalled by Huses' acidic attack on these young actors. Tiffany Bravo Simon,
I haven’t seen the show but was appalled by Huses’ acidic attack on these young actors.

Tiffany

]]>