If we didn’t have distinction between manager and ARTIST, what would fret about getting over? We first must make the distinction in order to call for its elimination.

I am also afraid these distinctions might be intractably conflated with notions of identity. If we lost the distinction, how would we define ourselves? As soon as we started to make sense of anything, from any perspective, we would slip into distinction-making. “I see things THIS way, but need to see them THAT way…” implies distinct positions.

It is hard to construct lines of action, to act, without constructing an identity of some sort that for us, explains to us, “who is taking action?” I also must also separate myself from other objects in order to act ON/TOWARDS those objects.

So I might find myself saying that we cannot act without creating some distinct identity IN WHICH we are acting. We are lazy and use a priori categories like manager and artist.

“As a _________, I take the action of calling for the removal of the boundary between manager and artist.” You cannot call for the removal of a boundary without constructing another. ( I suspect I am way off here, but say it just to see what it evokes… ).

If we cannot act in absence of an identity and distinction is a natural by-product of identity, how will boundaries ever be removed? Well, maybe a PARTICULAR boundary such as manager/ARTIST can be removed, but for the new entity to take action, it will need an identity.

So maybe we’re stuck? Maybe the work is all about bridging between MANAGER/artist? To take the perspective of the OTHER, we need them to remain an OTHER.

Is it crazy to suggest that instead of eliminating boundaries, we look to create even MORE boundaries so that we can learn through synthesis of a greater number of combinations?

Hans

p.s. this is somehow too simplistic and I am missing something big that doesn’t occur to me at the moment… but you gotta hit ‘send’ sometime or you’ll die holding a mouse.