[dance-tech] Re: Sensordance, etc........The language of technology - the technology of dance

hello Jamie

hello list

of course you are not concerned about a sokal affair, otherwise you
would take the sharing and developing of knowledge in the field more
seriously. The style with which you (and others) write, leaves
dance-tech in a position where a hoax paper can and would be taken as
serious research.

Challenging assumptions only advances yourself, to advance a field of
study requires more than obfuscated, subjective re-supposition. Asking
questions is not equal to seeking answers to the questions you pose.

again i would ask to to explain and justify your use of terminology.
if we return to 'old  discussions' it because you and others have
failed to deal with the issue. it seems that your post-post-modernist
discourse is restricted to "no, but neither yes".

I am deeply disturbed that in a field dependent on interdisciplinary
interaction you are willing to misappropriate words from other
disciplines. The purpose of publishing (journal, blog, list) is to
share knowledge in a common ground. your usage of terms that are
common to all, but with a concealed, divergent meaning is what
prevents meaningful discourse. The fact i have to assume context from
your (often contradictory) text is indicative of the problem, i hope
that in your PADM paper you clearly identify the meaning(s) and
context(s) behind your technological poetics. the examples that you
give for other uses of morphogenesis  are more closely aligned with
the biological than your explanation.

It seems clear from your writing that you are a post-modernist who is
unable to reconcile themselves with the modernist process through
which they derive your work. Your entire position is dependent on the
sciences (empirical, social, philosphical etc.) that you 'reject':

I am attempting to understand the world (and the body) as fields of
communicating forces: this would deal so much with the cosmic scale, as with
the atomic, biological, geological, and of course, social and cultural
scales.


but i'm sure you will say i don't mean 'atomic' etc. in terms that
most of us would assume, rather your own, unique  and divergent
interpretation. again, i look forward to reviewing your paper.

Your idea of extending the messages with links that clarify the meaning is
brilliant... (I will try to follow up when I find the correct links or
otherwise try to explain...)


i'm sorry, its not my idea, its part of something called academic
rigor. communication is about clarification of meaning,  perhaps the
lens for your communicating forces is miss focused?

simulation and sythesis have nothing to do with embodied experience but with
discourse and representation. Embodied experience is influenced by discourse
and representation, yet it is also the excess of discourse and
representation, that which challenges simulation and synthesis.


I gave an example which you were unable to counter, here the ball is
in your court to explain what you mean by embodiment. Even then i
suspect an analysis of your explanation will reveal a dependency on
simulation and synthesis.

Discourse and representation are external practices, they support
simulation and synthesis. Indeed they  are dependent on both. if
embodiment deals with the 'excess' of simulation, it is also dependent
on simulation. The same is true if you mean 'outside' simulation (or
else you would not 'simulation' in the context of the body). Perhaps,
more interestingly you are not claiming that embodiment deals with the
'real', in not doing so you tacitly acknowledge simulation and
synthesis.

perhaps now you will say that there is no disembodiment, or embodiment
in an absolute sense, then what is there .. the liminal? if so you
should use concepts relating  to liminality not embodiment.

It is precisely this modernist dualism that I am attempting to criticise.
(instrument as object, technique as  mind) - some composers will agree that
the musical instrument has no meaning whatsoever as an object, it is the
Ãcriture, and the technique that makes the instrument, it is the sedimented
use.


if i write for an instrument that is a score. So if the score and the
technique make the instrument, and by virtue the performance (the
utilisation of technique) i can reduce the music back to these
elements. but again you seem to have contradicted yourself:

A piece of music or a choreography can never be reduced to scores or
movement techniques: the music is not the score, nor the dance is the dance
notation, music is the performance, and the signs of a score are only part
of the technology of music, the more significant part is in the specific
domains of style that allow you to perform in a specific way,


domains of style are the result of technique.

I think we can go much further than  looking into how our practice relates
to the science, but also looking into how both challenge each other's
methodologies and why.


in looking for shared principles we can uncover divergent ones, it is
there that useful methodological and conceptual challenges can be
found. Don't forget, difference is dependant on on similarity.

Again we are dealing with the old discussion of before: there is no body a
priori: there are discourses on the body and sedimented practices of the
body.


If there is no body 'a priori' from where does the discourse come, the
dis-embodied? And then, if the  dis-embodied has no substance (body)
how can they become embodied? With what do they perceive and
communicate?

Motion exists never a priori nor free from inherent meanings, nor is it
totally subdued to meaning: in every act of moving many layers of embodied
knowledge and practice  are taking place.


knowledge comes after the event (observation of object) and is the
result of accumulated experiences,

This takes us to a very old discussion: you assume that movement (therefore
the body, the world) exist a priori, without meaning and then comes our mind
and spirit and puts meaning into it (a classical modernist approach, nothing
wrong with it appart form the fact that I disagree...).


"in every act of moving many layers of embodied knowledge and practice
are taking place"

how is that different from:

"movement (therefore the body, the world) exist a priori, without
meaning and then comes our mind and spirit and puts meaning into it"

layering indicates putting something on top of.

... sound cannot totally be separated from the movement, and
the latter from the image of movement.


motion causes sound, but can exist without it. we can perceive motion,
even if it does not occur. can you hear in a vacum?, why does
animation appear to move?

I don't think form communicates the structures of any kind of objects,
objects have nothing to do with communication, the principles we may infer
are purely contingent forms of our thinking.


how do you know what a chair is, and how does a chair differ from a
stool. how do you drive your car? when looking at a spiders web are
you confused as to its structure?

These
forces do not exist a priori, they exist in so far as we think them, embody
them, experience them,


simulation and synthesis; if the 'forces' do not exist a priori then
they are experiential constructs.

how do you measure the forces? how do you identify and organise them,
can you share some of the pattern shifts and changes you have
observed?

you claim metaformativity, as a critical framework of study of
contemporary technologies that can  propose new fields and strategies
of production. is this simply an abstract proposal, or can it be
applied to current praxis? how does it function and what does it
reveal. for me this is of greater interest than your question on
adaptive tools.

Someone else interested in giving us feedback? I wonder what the others
think of the debate!


indeed.

best wishes

matt

Other related posts: