continuing with processual text-as-gift after Miles' pick-up, I agree
that what gets unconditionally offered is radical generosity as an
orientation to experience. The reader's thought is taken back outside of
the text, not on some bungee-cord of referentiality (please excuse)
released by the "writer-as-Indian-giver" (Middleton during King's talk),
that forever returns the reader to the locus of said writers lurking
thoughts/ideas, there to be rubber-stamped into passivity, but with the
strength of a sensed permission to engage lustfully in their future
experience in a generous way.
The text here acts as catalyst, offering an initiatory experience (see
Nick Piombino for more in his essay on indeterminacy in "Close
Listening" ed. Bernstein). It works with(in) its ephemeral terms of
existence defined by the time of the reader/listeners attention to it by
radically foregrounding modalities of spontaneity (thinking here, for
e.g., of Miles' own speed delivery which I read as an index of
improvisation). The potential then is for the projection of a
subjectivity that is fully temporalised and willing, (after Vaneigem
again) in its making of itself, to be remade by others in its turn. Now
that's what I call generous.
rob
--
Rob Holloway
%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
|