Page 1

March 2012

JOURNEY 005 ADVENTURES OF THE CONTEMPORARY SPIRIT This is a call for unrealised relations, a call to realise these relations, those contemporary and of the future, before and after us, to come and to arrive at. If you stop to think about what you’re doing, you run the risk of falling short to the overbearing weight of self-criticism. To be selfreflexive is always important though. I find it increasingly difficult to administer equal measures of thought and rationale to most things, when the very act of self-reflexivity is or rather has become a self-fulfilling act of selfabsorption; it has discourse. The self. The engagement of self with self is ironic. A double irony. A post irony. What are we even doing? Participation and collaboration and a shared horizon is crucial, but if the concern is shifting every so often unto the waters of the self, then how so can each party be verified over the other? Where do self and the shared meet? It is the meeting point, the meeting of meeting and cross-meeting meeting where we meet here; we move from this point. It is increasingly difficult to not move from this point; one must move in order to meet further, because static meeting becomes static and not-meeting. It is not anti-meeting. Lots of things become increasingly difficult to adhere to when you concertedly abide by their codes and instructions and their ethics and their morals. To be selfreflexive, surely, is to not wholly adhere or abide, ever? Ever. Then, what is so crucial about the

moment where we meet, constantly, always, sometimes shifting. When you change position, in space - so I traverse space to gain a newfound position in the same, greater space, different space to my original position in this space – do you remain to be in the same space, or a different space? Are we all always together? I can’t write now; I’m too tired. I am too tired, too. You do automatic writing. I know what you’re doing. All write. Sabotage it. At the centre of this concern is a tracing of biophilia. Is time a living system? To what degree can our understanding of time in relation to it being a system alive be resolutely pinned to semiology and or semantics alone? Or rather, how can we understand time in relation to it being a living system, without resigning or at least relying on a limited understanding of time that is only in relation to a base, human interpretation in semiology and semiotics? For time to be understood as a living system, we must identify a like-for-like set of relations between characteristics of time (as a behaviour*) and the generic characteristics of a living system. What are the likeness’ between time – ad infinitum and say, for example, weather? This is a question. Nonrandom-ness, energies, componential and interstitial time value. Time / living system is open; continuous interaction. A biophilic relation to time is open and chaotic. *The affects of time are behavioural. Time is not behavioural. The nature of time prevents it from being behavioural; it can only be constant; time outside of time is only constant. Is time self–reflexive? No. Where natural, living systems are conscious, there emerges self-reflexivity either in i) behavioural terms (subconscious) ii) affective terms (conscious). Is time conscious? No. I’m not talking about Phenomenology here, I am lost though. I will continue, anon. Are we ourselves markers / makers of time? The moment we enter the world is marked as is the moment we leave it. This can be seen on the gravestones of those already gone. “R.I.P So and So, Born 19th June 1929 Died 4th May 1998” There was a whole world, a whole life between these two dates, yet the points we choose to remember are the dates of the beginning and the end. Contained within the life between these two points are hundreds / thousands of other markers that we attempt to record. On holiday, at the meeting of something new, on 'special occasions' and other points too, we take pictures. Why do we do this if not to mark time? To remember something through an image of the crucial moment of our meeting with this something. Photography and the way we use it now is relatively new, but the marking of time in this way is not. Time and moments are also recorded through the telling of stories, or in writing, or by other methods I can't quite think of right now. It doesn't really matter so much how it is done, but the fact that we do it is important. That we relate ourselves to time and to the world by marking meetings that we have with what is around us is what I would like to look at. And further, to question whether through marking, do we make our own time?

This is a call for interest. If you are interested in writing or speaking on the adventures of the contemporary spirit, please go here: A
















JOURNEY is a monthly writerly publication exploring the Adventures of the Contemporary Spirit