Notes of the Rhizomatic mind
Het meemaken van het proces van het maken tonen
Het meemaken tonen
I look around, catching fragments of conversation among images who seem to know each other, glancing in each other’s directions because at the same time they’re new. Everything is different except one another.
position of the participant
position of the viewer
de getuige die toekijkt
viewer on the set
the stage of the viewer
Looking through the lens that you are watching
Watching through the lens that you are looking through
Now I’m looking through the lens that you are watching
Let’s say that you could see something and mistake it for something else
On a walk, the frame is gone. You’re completely in contact with it all. You’re in the scene, not just watching anymore.
move through the space in and out of every direction, as a child that would ignore the roads in a park
and discover his own details
To go along with the process
Direktheid van een belevenis
Context of contextloos
Contrast en vervreemding
In situatie gezet of niet?
De ‘absurditeit’ van het dagelijkse opzoeken en tonen
Grens, wisselwerking of overeenkomsten (gedeeld vlak) tussen fictie en documentatie
To imagine the rest. Speaking directly through the work combined with the trust of the viewers own eyes and ears creates an estranged identification. You recognize but yet not. near but distant at the same time.
Let’s say that you could see something and mistake it for something else
There’s a kind of a ‘knowing’, and then there’s an intellectual knowing
Ik kan wel mijn eigen beweegredenen hebben, omdat deze beweegredenen voor mij werken om iets te maken. Dit wil niet zeggen dat ze er voor de kijker moeten zijn om deze tot zich te nemen. Het werk kan opzichzelf weer iets anders uitstralen en het is dan belangrijk dat deze nieuwe vorm of situatie niet wordt aangetast door mijn beweegredenen. Deze kunnen los staan van het ‘eind-product’. Dit sluit niet uit dat ze elkaar soms juist kunnen versterken, maar er moet dan een wisselwerking tussen deze 2 vormen zitten. zo niet dan is het belangrijk de sporen uit te wissen.
Whatever your thinking, past Tuesday is still
a month away
child in front of
Spelen is het voorbeeld van het oplossen van tijd (beleven)
Ik heb geen idee hoe ik in al hun hoofden zit
Zo stroomt water langs een rots, aan alle kanten wordt die geraakt
Alsof hij de wereld alleen vanuit zijn ooghoeken durft te bekijken.
Het geluid ontwijkt haar net, ze loopt zo hard dat de ene echo de andere overlapt. Geen stap krijgt
de tijd voluit na te klinken
Na hoeveel wordt vaak
The world is as it is, but the way you go through it changes
De contour vindt van zichzelf dat hij conturloos is. Hij is ‘een gat’, een afwezige
iemand die niet bestond
Het beeld hing in eendonkere hoek, maar had hem onmiddelijk naar zich toe gezogen
Het leek op dat gezicht, dat nooit echt bij een levend mens kon horen, duizenden jaren bestaan had,
Patroon boven figuur. dichtbij en ver weg tegelijkertijd.
onafhankelijk van wat dan ook, volkomen in zichzelf. Besloten.
Bij zoiets gerings vervluchtigt de tijd meteen, je onthoudt alleen de beweging
Een willekeurig terugkerende referentie
‘As I was moving ahead occasionally I saw brief glimpses of beauty
I have never been able really, to figure out, where my life begins, and where it ends.
I have never never been able to figure it all out. What’s all about.. What it all means..
So when I began now, to put all these rolls of film(toughts of time/memory) together. To string them together. The first idea was to keep them chronological.
But then I gave up. And I just began placing them together by chance. The way I found them on the shelve. Because I did not know, where any piece of my life, really belongs. So let it be. Let it go. Just by pure chance. Disorder. There is some coherence, some kind of order, in order of it’s own.. Which I do not really understand. Same as I never understood life around me. The real life, as they say. Or the real people.
I never understood them.
I still do not understand them.
And.. I do not really want to understand them.’
Zen and the Art of Motorcycle Maintenance
I have seen these marshes/memories/images/the perspective/changes/x a thousand times, yet each time they’re new. It’s wrong to call them benign. You could just as well call them cruel and senseless, they are all of those things, but the reality of them overwhelms halfway conceptions.
It’s completely natural to think of Europeans who believed in ghosts or Indians who believed in ghosts as ignorant. The scientific point of view has wiped out every other view to a point where they all seem primitive, so that if a person today talks about ghosts or spirits he is considered ignorant or maybe nutty. It’s just all but completely impossible to imagine a world where ghosts can actually exist. My own opinion is that the intellect of modern man isn’t that superior. IQs aren’t that much different. Those Indians and medieval men were just as intelligent as we are, but the context in which they thought was completely different. Within that context of thought, ghosts and spirits are quite as real as atoms, particles, photons and quants are to a modern man. In that sense I believe in ghosts. Modern man has his ghosts and spirit too, you know. The laws of physics and of logic.. the number system.. the principle of algebraic substitution. These are ghosts. We just believe in them so thoroughly they seem real. For example, it seems completely natural to presume that gravitation and the law of gravitation existed before Isaac Newton. It would sound nutty to think that until the seventeenth century there was no gravity. So when did this law start? Has it always existed? What I’m driving at is the notion that before the beginning of the earth, before the sun and the stars were formed, before the primal generation of anything, the law of gravity existed. Sitting there, having no mass of it’s own, no energy of it’s own, not in anyone’s mind because there wasn’t anyone, not in space because there was no space either, not anywhere — this law of gravity still existed? If that law of gravity existed, I honestly don’t know what a thing has to do to be nonexistent. It seems to me that law of gravity has passed every test of nonexistence that that law of gravity didn’t have. Or a single scientific attribute of existence it did have. And yet it is still ‘common sense’ to believe that it existed. Well, I predict that if you think about it long enough you will find yourself going round and round and round and round until you finally reach only one possible, rational, intelligent conclusion. The law of gravity and gravity itself did not exist before Isaac Newton. No other conclusion makes sense. And what that means is that that law of gravity exists nowhere except in people’s heads! it’s a ghost! We are all of us very arrogant and conceited about running down other people’s ghosts but just as ignorant and barbaric and superstitious about our own. Why does everybody believe in the law of gravity then? Mass hypnosis. In a very orthodox form known as ‘education’. You’ve heard of the importance of eye contact in the classroom? Every educationist emphasizes it. No educationist explains it. If you think that sounds ridiculous.. That’s the first normal thing I’ve said in weeks. The rest of the time I’m feigning twentieth century lunacy just like you are. So as not to draw attention to myself. But i’ll repeat it for you. We believe the disembodied words of Sir Isaac Newton were sitting in the middle of nowhere billions of years before he was born and that magically he discovered these words. They were always there, even when they applied to nothing. Gradually the world came into being and then they applied to it. In fact, those words themselves were what formed the world. That, my beloved reader, is ridiculous. The problem, the contradiction the scientists are stuck with, is that of mind. Mind has no matter or energy but they can’t escape its predominance over everything they do. Logic exists in the mind. Numbers exist only in the mind. I don’t get upset when scientists say that ghosts exist in the mind. It’s that only that gets me. Science is only in your mind too, it’s just that that doesn’t make it bad. Or ghosts either. Laws of nature are human inventions, like ghosts. The whole blessed thing is a human invention, including the idea that it isn’t a human invention. The world has no existence whatsoever outside the human imagination. It’s all a ghost, and in antiquity was so recognized as a ghost, the whole blessed world we live in. It’s run by ghosts. We see what we see because these ghosts is show it to us, ghosts of Moses and Christ and the Buddha, and Plato, and Descartes, and Rousseau and Jefferson and Lincoln, on and on and on. Isaac Newton is a very good ghost. One of the best. Your common sense is nothing more that the voice of thousands and thousands of these ghosts from the past, Ghosts and more ghosts. Ghosts trying to find their place among the living.
The reason people see Quality differently, is because they come to it with different sets of analogues. He gave linguistic examples, showing that to us the Hindi letters da, da, and dha all sound identical to us because we don’t have analogues to them to sensitize us to their differences. Similarly, most Hindi speaking people cannot distinguish between da and the because they are not so sensitized. It is not uncommon, he, for Indian villagers to see ghosts. But they have a terrible time seeing the law of gravity. This explains why a classful of freshman composition students arrives at similar ratings of Quality in the compositions. They all have relatively similar backgrounds and similar knowledge. But if a group of foreign students were brought in, or, say, medieval poems out of the range of class experience were brought in, then the students’ ability to rank Quality would probably not correlate as well. In a sense, he said, it’s the student’s choice of Quality that defines him. People differ about Quality, not because Quality is different, but because people are different in terms of experience. He speculated that if two people had identical a priori analogues they would see Quality identically every time. There was no way to test this, however, so it had to remain just speculation.
All the time we are aware of millions of things around us – these changing shapes, these burning hills, the sound of the engine, the feel of the throttle, each rock and weed and fence post and piece of debris beside the road – aware of these things but not really conscious of them unless there is something unusual or unless they reflect something we are predisposed to see. We could not possibly be conscious of these things and remember all of them because our mind would be so full of useless details we would be unable to think. From all this awareness we must select, and what we select and call consciousness is never the same as the awareness because the process of selection mutates it.
There’s one trap that isn’t the truth trap of yes-no logic
Yes and no.. this or that.. one or zero. On the basis of this elementary two-term discimination, all human knowledge is built up. The demonstration of this is the computer memory which stores all its knowledge in the form of binary information. It contains ones and zeros, that’s all.
Because we’re unaccustomed to it, we don’t usually see that there’s a third possible logical term equal to yes and no which is capable of expanding our understanding in an unrecognized direction. We don’t even have a term for it, so I’ll have to use the Japanese mu. Mu means ‘no thing’. Like ‘Quality’ it points outside the process of dualistic discrimination. Mu simply says, ‘No class; not one, not zero, not yes, not no. It states that the context of the question is such that a yes or no answer is in error and should not be given. ‘Unask the question’ is what it says. Mu becomes appropriate when the context of the question becomes too small for the truth of the answer.
Every laboratory scientist knows that very often his experimental results provide mu answers to the yes-no questions the experiments were designed for. In these cases he considers the experiment poorly designed, chides himself for stupidity and at best considers the ‘wasted’ experiment which has provided the mu answer to be a kind of wheelspinning which might help prevent mistakes in the design of future yes-no experiments.
This low evaluation of the experiment which provided the mu answer isn’t justified. The mu answer is an important one. It’s told the scientist that the context of his question is too small for nature’s answer and that he must enlarge the context of the question. That is a very important answer! His understanding of nature is tremendously improved by it, which was the purpose of the experiment in the first place. A very strong case can be made for the statement that science grows by its mu answers more that by its yes or no answers. Yes or no confirms or denies a hypothesis. Mu says the answer is beyond the hypothesis. Mu is the ‘phenomenon’ that inspires scientific inquiry in the first place! There’s nothing mysterious or esoteric about it. It’s just that our culture has warped us to make a low value judgment of it.
Check your tests and restudy the question. Don’t throw away those mu answers! They’re every bit as vital as the yes or no answers. They’re more vital. They’re the ones you grow on!
3 children watching (viewers)
1 child swinging ons self-made rope
1 child pushing (happy)
Background: 3 levels (like a flag)
Blue, big wall
Child, gazing into the void
Gazing into nothingness
Or gazing without looking
3 kids crawling, moving
3 colour leveled barn
Young man with umbrella
You don’t know his mood
Child without clothes (mud on him)
Standing in a door opening
Looking into the camera or just next to it
Double reflection of the face
Child playing a game
Red furniture, white background
Child with dreamy glance
Faces half covered
Looking down on the unseen (patient?)
Black, orange and blue gore
People watching (some smiling)
1 person (unidentified)
Building a red wall
1 person sitting (face covered in black)
1 person holding an unknown object (caring)
Window to the next room
- As I was moving ahead occasionally I saw brief glimpses of beauty
- to change one’s mind
- Inland Empire
- Los Highway
- Mullholland Drive
- Blue Velvet
- Interview on Francis Bacon by David Sylvester
- ‘Screaming’ Popes
- Figure with meat
- tellen en wegen
- waar was je nou
Robert M Pirsig
- Zen and the Art of Motorcycle Maintenance
- Four Season (video)
- His form of working and process of thinking combined to working
- Several performances I saw online
- Several performances I saw in the Stedelijk Museum
- Big Time
- 20.000 days on earth (way of working)
- Taxi Teheran
- This is not a Film
Alex van Warmerdam
- De Noorderlingen
- De Jurk
- The Girl Chewing Gum
- 8 1/2
- Coffee and Cigarettes
- The Limits of Control
- Ghost Dog
- Permanent Vacation
- Interview on Francis Bacon by David Sylvester
Deleuze & Guattari
- Chambre Noir