Date:        Sun, 07 Jan 1996 10:34:27 EST
From: Karen Ocana <CXKO-AT-MUSICA.MCGILL.CA>
Subject: Re[2]: fall/flow


r Aden's response-point to Karinne's response-point,

>Just to respond to one point in Karinne's post:
>
>>
>>The idea that flow is _indifferent_ to direction... well again this is
>>in the context of actually working in the Contact medium, but i would
>>make a polar shift from indifference to extreme attention in my
>>definition of flow.  The way to really screw up in Contact is to have a
>>lack of attention to the flow.  It requires a huge openness to actaully
>>successfuly follow the dance that's going on- and by openness i mean a
>>really simple state of attentiveness- completely paying attention to the
>>movement between you and your partner
>
>I am not convinced that the extreme attention of the dancers is at odds
>with the indifference of the flow to its direction. Wouldn't you also screw
>up a Contact Improvisation by bringing to it a predetermined and specific
>idea of where it was going to go, in what direction? And each of the
>'micro'-decisions that you make is made based on extremely subtle and
>variable conditions, conditions of balance, energy, contact, such that the
>decision itself is highly local and is made by your body and the forces
>acting on it. That is, though the flow certainly makes local decisions as
>to its direction, it has to be indifferent on the whole to these decisions
>or it would screw up the dance. Isn't that why you emphasize the openness
>necessary to go with the flow? Flows do, in fact, flow in certain
>directions, or they would not be flows. Although there is much attention to
>the local determinations of direction, there can be no global
>directionality. I don't think I am arguing with your point, only clarifying
>how the original poster might have intended the idea of indifference.

as it connects to my original indifference the implications of which
Aden has now, brilliantly, made me aware, or double aware. . . of
how in other words forces are difference and are *in* difference (hence
productive).  the question of directionality also, i think, ties into
that of determination, and hence of difference and repetition (and
that whole shebang! with its virtual-actual dice throws.  freedom,
pah!), and differenciations, and singularities, and how they are
thrown, tossed, flung to their fate, or how their fates are flung
at them.  Agency, pah!  I like very  much Karinne's constellations
of forces, flows, falls, in her new post, as lines, conjoining, di-
verging: the whole kinaesthetic geometric microphysics of it.
  Forces do draw lines, or are drawn out in lines, radiate
from points, and it is perhaps this radiation which gives rise to
what are also called intensities, or, better, radiation is intensity,
and it is precisely the intensity of singular points which draws
these lines which then connect with other singular points giving
rise to diagrammes; diagrammes arising out of these constellations
of singular points; from solo to duet, from single to couple,
from coccyx to hip bone, from coccycx  (how do you spell that damned
word?) to shoulder-arm joint or armpit . . . and all those other
wonderful diagrams and shapes, point to line to plane, and again,
plane to line to point, and again, point to line to plane, and
again, shivering to pieces with intensities, and flowing all the
same, but going through convulsions and congealments.

it's freezing!!!

but,
>
>In difference,
>
>>-Karinne Keithley
>
and i have to go out, when it is so much warmer at home.  hum, hum,
hum, free dum dum. . . sun is coming out, see you,  karen
>
>
>$$$$$$$$$$$
>   Aden
>$$$$$$$$$$$
>
>


     ------------------