>For me, all these terms, including 'virtual' and 'real' are rife with >problems based on categoricity and ideology - for example following >someone like Lingis, I think we're inscribed, that inscription and culture >goes all the way up and down, we're permeated, we construct (local) >meaning the best we can, we find our way the best we can (sloughing into >Wittgenstein or some such).
Hi Alan, Bergson's "virtual" seems less problematic ideologically, because it literally, historically hasn't happened. Once it happens (if it ever does), it then gets codified, historicized, analyzed, categorized, etc. Until then, who knows how it will fit in ideologically (or what it even is)? This could be one argument for letting practice lead. An art practice finds its way in dialogue with materials that are themselves in dialogue with the world -- a different kind of dialogue than philosophy's dialogue with the world. _______________________________________________ NetBehaviour mailing list NetBehaviour@netbehaviour.org http://www.netbehaviour.org/mailman/listinfo/netbehaviour
