[...]r /> one saying enters into the service of the said, that is the thematization of being, purity of its intentions will be inevitably compromised. a saying that must be unsaid. a movement of thought that continues to resist collapsing into a settled expression, freedom from the cage of thematics. this lss="trms">mission (lss="trms">responsibility for the other) can be adequately expressed only through a certain impossible undoing of lss="trms">language. lss="trms">presenting a philosophical other is only possible when we generate a saying saying saying itself.
my performance talk<lgc clss='lgc'>:lgc> to lss="trms">situate my subjectivity lss="trms">linguistically (in a nonlss="trms">presence and a nonplace). (lss='qstn'>?) (if the stakes are at lss="trms">situating myself, then the lss="trms">question is whylss='qstn'>?)
saying becomes totally exposed in its approach to the other. in limited lss="trms">social lss="trms">situations it creates risks of embarrassment or rebuttal and perhaps sounding psychotic. something that will strip away all protective layers, whether cultural or lss="trms">literal, from the body (of knowllss="trms"nttrm="knowledge,Knowledge">edge). it can also be masochistically painful for the subject. the absolute saying is a trauma, with vulnerability and passivity even is a bodily way, where the ethical being is<lgc clss='lgc'>:lgc> one penetrated by the other. (saying is ethical while said is juridical.)

<lgc clss='lgc'>-->lgc> ‘psychology’ not only what we do but why we do. the lss="trms">science that should be studied so much in art, specially in performance art. the how of human behavior, feelings and emotions.
the psychological space, the lss="trms">intermediary space of the ethical lss="trms">relation, shyness and commitment to the other. “i am inlss="trms">finitely more lss="trms">demanding of myself than of others”. (is this the realm of shyness being before godlss='qstn'>?)

<lgc clss='lgc'>-->lgc> ‘intelligence’ in the sense that what do i pay attention to and why, and what do i ignore and why, and how do i put it together. (synthesizing)

<lrg clss="large lg2" stl="font-size:111%"> <lgc clss='lgc'>-->lgc> ‘cornered’ someone that is cornered lss="trms">ontologically. can not shy out of the corner.

<lgc clss='lgc'>-->lgc> ‘lss="trms">present’ of lss="trms">presence signifies nowness. The movement of time makes things lss="trms">present by making them now. What is the lss="trms">relation of this “making lss="trms">present” to the lss="trms">worldlss='qstn'>? Is the movement of time ultimately to be traced to that of the lss="trms">worldlss='qstn'>? On such a view, we take the successive nows that constitute time’s movement as a function of the lss="trms">world. Their olss="trms"nttrm="righ,rigo,riga,rigi,trig,rign">rigin is the successive impressions we receive from its objects. We, thus, come to affirm that nowness is the lss="trms">world’s lss="trms">presence to us in the impressions it leaves. l clss="ppl">Augustinl>e gives the classic expression of this lss="trms">position when he lss="trms">writes<lgc clss='lgc'>:lgc> “It is in you, O my mind, that I lss="trms">measure time. ... What I lss="trms">measure is the impress produced in you by the things as they pass and <lgc clss='lgc'>[lgc>the impressions<lgc clss='lgc'>]lgc> abiding in you when they have passed."2 The impress is registered as the lss="trms">present now. We register the abiding impression left in the mind as the relss="trms">membered now. If, however, we break the tie between lss="trms">presence and the lss="trms">world, we have to say that the impress is the result of our own activity. The impression that results in the now comes, in other words, not from the lss="trms">world, but from ourselves. It is a result of our lss="trms">affecting ourselves. In l clss="ppl">Derridl>a’s words, its olss="trms"nttrm="righ,rigo,riga,rigi,trig,rign">rigin is “the auto-lss="trms">affection” of consciousness.
lrg>
<lgc clss='lgc'>-->lgc> ‘consciousness’ Since it involves the self-awareness that lss="trms">demands self-lss="trms">presence, the lss="trms">question of lss="trms">language expands once again. In answering it, we must inquire into the lss="trms">nature of consciousness.  

<lgc clss='lgc'>-->lgc> ‘lss="trms">veil’ unlss="trms">veiled. a sign of lss="trms">difference, a kind of timiditylss='qstn'>? is shyness same as lss="trms">veillss='qstn'>? is it a sheer projectionlss='qstn'>? are we (am i) subduedlss='qstn'>?

<lgc clss='lgc'>-->lgc> ‘exhibitionist ambitions’ and idealized structures. the exhibitionist ambitions of these artists forswear all objective orientation. Their own uniqueness and grandiosity is taken for granted. it is not open to debate and need not be founded in a structured manner that is accessible and comprehensible to one's powers of appraisal and judgment. the relss="trms">presentatives of postlss="trms">modernism adopt the stylss="trms"nttrm="listen,alist,ilist,llist,olist,ylist,ulist">listic forms, themes and visual lss="trms">material of their art from the boundless treasure trove of art lss="trms">history so lss="trms"nttrm="already,spread">readily accessible today. dependence on what has allss="trms"nttrm="already,spread">ready been lss="trms">formulated. the underlying tone of this art serves to flaunt an unparalleled sense of superiority and grandiose self-confidence. seen in many performance in this time too. (in my painting i have a rational point of view.) i don't want to orient myself towards ambitions, injected by libidinal energy, of my grandiose self-artist. of those, whose prime concern is to show their uniqueness find themselves faced with the lss="trms">question<lgc clss='lgc'>:lgc> “what is to be donelss='qstn'>?”. I too, choose to refuse to pander to the lss="trms">demands of innovation, style and lss="trms">integrity, but at the same time not to work myself up to grandiose self-image of artistic omnipotence.

look at the theory of intelligence for lss="trms">language and other kind of ‘enjoying’ the lss="trms">nature, art or other structures.

how is the philosophy of the lss="trms">sublime (quality of greatness) related to the format of my talkslss='qstn'>? if lss='mywrk'>my work is not an endeavor on the philosophy of the lss="trms">sublime then what is itlss='qstn'>?

in this lss="trms">writing i am not going to work in the forms of claims as lss="trms">stages in a logical argument. my approach would we unsubstantial to break free from the process of offering philosophical evidence...

mobilizing forces
scoring lss="trms">system

oplss="trms">position to shamanism in performance art, points in The Art of lss="trms">Modernism - l clss="ppl">Sandro l clss="ppl">Bocolal>l>, for critique on Beuys and l clss="ppl">Abraml>ovich.
Faced with objects and performances by Joseph Beuys, viewers are as baffled as they are by Marcel Duchamp's Bottle Rack. They do not know what is going on, are unable to relate what they see to any known lss="trms">system and are left entirely to their own devices, i.e. to their own emotional lss="trms">responses, for all the good that does them. They feel lss="trms">affected, and have a vague and almost unwilling sense of being touched at a certain emotional depth, but are unable to lss="trms">interpret these feelings (isn't that the case with most art performanceslss='qstn'>?). Beuys celebrates complex and incomprehensible rituals before an astonished audience. He subjects his person to difficult tasks and appears to be making some kind of sacrifice in doing so. Beuys, after all, wishes to heal. To judge by his statements, he wishes to redeem the German people and indeed all of humankind from their lss="trms">social evils, their petrifaction and impotence. In this sense, he transcends the role of the artist. He sees his audience not, in the traditional sense, as a free counterpart to whom he lss="trms">presents a work (as form and expression of his own self), but as a lss="trms">material to be formed. He appears as the people's tribune, as teacher, seer, healer and prophet, transforming the role of the artist into that of the shaman. l clss="ppl">Kohutl> stresses that the effect of messianic and charismatic personalities is not necessarily detrimental under all circumstances. At times of severe crisis, it is not the modestly self-doubting type of personality that is needed (who generally makes up the leading stratum in calmer times). In times of fear, the masses turn to a messianic or charismatic personality, not because above all they have recognized his abilities and competence, but because they feel that this leader will satisfy their need to be imperturbably convinced of being lss="trms"nttrm="righ,rigo,riga,rigi,trig,rign">right, or because they want to identify with his strength and security.
(caution criticizing beuys and abramovic, you don't know all about them. your criticism is certain aspect of their persona and performance face, in order to make your own point and argument. it is not to understand their works. is this oklss='qstn'>?)

when ideas fail, words come in very handy. (l clss="ppl">Goethel>lss='qstn'>?)

all lss="trms">serious thinking is lss="trms">interpersonallss='qstn'>? it is the key to how we think by challenging each other with our ideas.

this is early, i should really give lss="trms">lectures in 20 years.

intimacy<lgc clss='lgc'>:lgc> first talking than thinking (maybe even taking it back), feeling an idiot afterward. When the saying is taken over by lss="trms">rhetoric or maneuvering or calculation then the problem is persuading or proving, not intimacy. (intimate thoughts in Shakespear). running with strategy in conversing and conversation (winning a round or winning an argument) is traceable back to power and coercion and its discomforts and lss="trms">anxieties. the art that i am talking about should not win the conversation. (but why intimacy in the art project at alllss='qstn'>?) by intimacy i find a route to my true consciousness. in intimacy only there is the possibility for lss="trms">love. not making the other/audience to think in a certain way, but exactly the oplss="trms">posite, the performer has to loose the game of convincement or wit (in her work/form/performance).

shyness<lgc clss='lgc'>:lgc> not the clinical term. i am talking about a shyness that is deep in the character, a kind of trembling before the other.

the ethical lss="trms">relation to the other, as always important, stakes are higher in performancelss='qstn'>? the proximity of[...]