roachboy

geez, host--i have no idea what you want me to say to this.

what you posted is in part very flattering----and in part is curious.

the curious part is that you effectively seem to put me in the position of being able to say why folk might have voted for me as presenter--and i'm a bit surprised that they did, really, simply because my life in the underground has generated adaptations and one of them is that i do what i do and assume that much of it is invisible.

i'm pleased when i discover that i'm wrong, when i do, but it is nonetheless still the case.

i want folk to interact with what i am doing, but have worked out ways to continue regardless.

i'm going to talk about something else for a bit:

i have this running fight with one of the folk who i have worked with in clairaudient about what i "owe" an audience, whether i "owe" it to "them" to explain what's happening, or whether i "owe" it to them to move inside more. she argues that i do---i argue that my only real obligation is to be clear, to be precise, and internally consistent, to present layers of articulated information and past that to leave it up to an audience to fashion their own experience from within the constraints.

there are always levels that correspond to how i see a particular project, and so there is always a deciphering game, and when the experience of at least some of an audience coincides with what i think is going on, then i see in it something of a success on my own terms--but it's also interesting and cool that folk see entirely other things---and interesting and cool that they see nothing at all.

and it's not easy to maintain an engagement on the part of folk who do not simply float around in your head with material that you generate or organize if there's no particular expectation on their part that they will see anything for having interacted with it.

or maybe they do see stuff, but it's not what i think.

or maybe making stuff is in a sense opening yourself to modalities of patterning and maybe we only see aspects of the phenomena that we pattern continuously, and so maybe partial is all there is, and maybe if you can figure out ways to let the patterning that your thought relies upon run independently of its relation to the emergent "i" function, that you can order stuff in ways that communicate past what you know yourself.

so maybe i am in the audience as well.

and maybe that explains this sense of being partially visible.
it's a constituitive feature of how i operate in the world.
and it is a basic aspect of how the world is.
who knows?

anyway, all this is related to soundwork.
it leaks everywhere.


enough of this. it's all cryptic and feels bizarrely self-indulgent. i dont know what i am explaining or why i am writing this or even how it got started. in this particular case, i'm not going to look back at it until i post because if i do i'll edit it, all of it, away.

it's all about explaining a curious sense of invisibility. the "i" function bounces along on a sleigh well behind the horses, which do other things.
how many horses are there?
where are they heading?
how fast are we going?
what's the landscape look like?



what exactly is a horse?

__________________
a gramophone its corrugated trumpet silver handle
spinning dog. such faithfulness it hear

it make you sick.

-kamau brathwaite