[syndicate] that's really interesting

[Bjørn Magnhildøen]

of course, an interesting post -
inter- word from 'between' (of course)
(truth) goes without saying
truth is nothing interesting _as_ truth (of course)
or only as a building block for something else which might be
interesting as far as not a truth itself
what is unresolved (yes (no))

on the other hand -
what other hand? how many hands? if you look at the body it's two into
one, two brains, two hands, though the interior is one - sort of a
functional truth - while the outside is interesting two - an
operational two?
in that sense 'interesting' is a clown in the circus, who entertain,
or wordplays and puzzles, or mountaineering, drugs, religion, work,
interest in death, and so on(!).

dull things are not interesting
sharp things are interesting
sharp means distinction
more distinction more words
distinction goes down to quantums
dull things like sea waves
they are relaxing, self-destroying
interest is self-encouraging
each night we sleep
we get tired
the body says ok that's enough of interest
the idea of the awake(ning) man
who doesn't need sleep
all is interest inte-rest
i don't know what to say
dull
waves
it's interesting
aha?
well well they are interrelated?
the journey interesting-dull is interesting
the journey dull-interesting is interesting
the state? interesting is not interesting
the state? dull is not interesting
which sums up to process and transition
the adventure
life is an adventure
now it became dull again
to keep to the interesting one has to avoid a lot
to avoid a lot one has to encounter a lot (at least once)
an interesting person is a more dull person than normal
the state of dull is interesting (indirectly then)
nothing holds, not even interesting
to hold is truth sort of local
behind that no image no interest
interest might be a big illusion
let's keep them interested
oh this boring person
i was interested in getting born but life turned out to be dull
what kind of life?
we try to turn it as dull as possible
interest management
thoughts come up by themselves
it's like a flow
do they pop up out of interest?
i don't think we own our thoughts a lot
that's an idea from fill in
the thoughts that appear - are they given to us by the mind to entertain us?
oh we are hard to entertain
animals are fine eating and sleeping
sure we should fill that structure
otherwise it would be empty
and if it's there why not use it
ok that was it
partly dull maybe partly interesting


2007/8/12, Alan Sondheim <sondheim at panix.com>:
>
>
>
> that's really interesting
>
> it's always a wonder, what's really interesting, and whether interest, in-
> terest-in, is a reasonable category of philosophical discourse. philosoph-
> ical writing often appears scholastic, dry, abstract; it seems to contain
> the semblance of power, that is argument for production's sake, production
> for motive's sake, motives for lifeworld's sake. the latter is crucial -
> that one inhabits one's work, replies, missions, admissions - exists with-
> in the life of worlds, structures accordingly. but is that of interest
> elsewhere, and what constitutes interest - there are two ways to think of
> 'having an interest in' - one, fascination with discourse on a particular
> subject - two, an interest in the sense of economic or other interest ab-
> stractly controlled by a steering mechanism, habitus of power, and so
> forth. i have a conversation recorded w/ david antin perhaps 30 years ago
> we were discussing astrology and about what was of interest and what was
> not and what sort of steering mechanisms or correlations there were and
> how they connected to the universe and i remember beyond or before the
> tape david saying that even if astrology were true it's not of much inter-
> est and i could only agree since personality and mute matter correlations
> mean relatively little and prove nothing in the long run, at first i was
> going to quote from the tape we made but then this particular section of
> interest was elsewhere, outside the thing itself so to speak. {} truth is
> never interesting; if truth were interesting then it would not be the flat
> greyness of existence. then it would be corrupted into landscape, furn-
> ished with ridges, serrated edges, graspable, something fallen into lang-
> uage - i have often said nothing could be farther from the truth. then and
> there interesting philosophy embraces evil, abjection, obscenity; it rides
> these, dis/comforts these, dis-inhabits the abstract, something's at stake
> - what remains elsewhere is physics, let's hear and see it for physics.
> "find the david antin text and what david antin says about things being
> interesting also try to talk about the notion of truth as being inherently
> neutral and not of interest because there's no error which allows distance
> and through that reflection and opening up possibilities connected with
> the lurid and abjection and perhaps one of the reasons systemic philosophy
> went out of favor in the twentieth century was because of the amazing
> amount of interesting information exploding everywhere and all of it veer-
> ing in interesting directions, not those of axiomatic conclusions, but
> those of interesting conversations always continuing. the more the world
> becomes (seems to become) more interesting, the more systems are retired,
> those systems which are steering mechanisms and not dialogs, even bell's
> theorem on the other hand is a dialog of sorts." crystal radios, constant
> chirping, western grebes, are interesting, tantra is very interesting and
> full of sights, sounds, tastes, touches, smells, extremely interesting and
> its truth is that of the back of the human being world-consorting, every
> thinking of the motive and intention of thinking. and curvature, curves,
> mathesis of every sort, is always of interest, the thinnest of beams
> enabling nothing, holding up even less. {} now crystal radio is interest-
> ing because it's driving high-impedance earphones and it makes me wonder
> of course why the same electromagnetic waves couldn't be harnessed to
> charge lithium batteries, run low-power computers, etc. i've often thought
> of living in pre-transmitter times, turning on a radio - of course there'd
> be static and atmospherics, but i think, am almost certain, there would be
> something else. i am the last person on earth to await the carboniferous.
> {} if philosophy could be presented in an interesting manner, what then?
> would philosophy then be of interest? i'm thinking of nietzsche, kierke-
> gaard, but also of witold gombrowicz, a guide to philosophy in six hours
> and fifteen minutes. now the text is fascinating but i wonder if terms
> such as consciousness, object, subject, being, existence, nothingness,
> reduction, etc. couldn't be considered placemarkers for other terms such
> as anhinga, tibet, arlington coupler, hohner victoria harmonica, vegan
> sushi, and so forth? in which case the discourse might well be more inter-
> esting - and what is the substrate of the original terminology, what holds
> it both to a more philosophical habitus and to a re/configuration of the
> world and what the world holds? texts are of course texts of substitution,
> deferral, differance, narration, holding language much as the phaistos
> disk holds language. and the phaistos disk is interesting perhaps because
> it remains mute, presenting us with a diacritique of language itself. {}
>
>
>
>
>
> -----Syndicate mailinglist-----------------------
> Syndicate network for media culture and media art
> information and archive: http://syndicate.anart.no
> to post to the Syndicate list: <syndicate at anart.no>
> Shake the KKnut: http://syndicate.anart.no/KKnut/
> no commercial use of the texts without permission
>