In the past year my preoccupation with the unsolvable, and merely acquaintable, existential phenomena of life has shifted into a preoccupation with the sonic, and the act of listening. So far, this is what I’ve gleened/come up with:
I use the word sonic to refer to the empirical and objective–that which is without the attention of cognition. There are sonic events, which become sounds after they are perceived. And, there are sonic environments in which we move, live, and perform. Hearing is the cognitive performance through which we add significance–in a strictly cultural, that is inter- or intra-personal manner–to sonic events, thus transforming them into sound. Hearing is always a reduction, so that sound in consciousness is sensually inferior to the sonic event int he sonic environment. I’ve coem this conclusion in ;arge part through the influence of Maurice Merleau-Ponty’s Phenomenology of Perception, particularly a passage in which he says something to the effect of “The creation of an object in consciousness is always at the cost of the destruction of that object.” I like his view on phenomenology, particularly the idea that we–we being humans–exist as a fold between cognition and the empirical; the world is an “infinite horizon of sensation” (also MMP’s language) and when we interface with that horizon we assemble our rendition of the world, and become agents within it.
I’ve strayed formt he point a bit, but the point was never articulated, or priveleged, so I’ve arrived perfectly. So, here I arrive at the event that the title premised, and here that event will crystalize until some server space somewhere crashes. From Jean Luc-Nancy’s Listening translated by Charlotte Mandell:

“Music is the art of hope for resonance: a sense that does not make sense except because of its resounding in itself.”

I’ve been a consumer. I’ve spent money on goods lately. I’ve spent money that doesn’t immediately influence my survival; perhaps a secondary or tertiary influence on my survival.

I’ve been a bit less tidy at home.

I’ve parted ways with posessions of mine in an attempt to slim down tha amount of space that my property takes up.

I was part of an art show with some friends from Florida. It was a good look on all account.

I’ve been listening to tha carter 3 leak. Lil’ Wayne could creat–what I would consider to be–a hip hop artifact of massive quantity and quality.

I watched “2 days in Paris” today with Chris. It was pretty funny to me, perhaps because I have a girlfriend.

I’m starting a new job.

I went shopping the day after Christmas and it wasn’t bad.

I’m working on all kinds of stuff right now, but it seems that sound is central to all of it.

I’m 25, and I’m confused. I feel more confused as a 25 year old human than I did as a 23 year old human. I suppose that these things happen.

I’m so much more connected with a new cell phone, ah ha, I remembered what I wanted to write about.

So, I recently bought a smartphone–on of the phones that lets you check email and connect to the internet. At a party while I was patently unengaged I began fussing with my phone, which led me to think about an anecdote that Chris had relayed recently. This is me relaying the statement: “I met a friend at a bar, and two of her frineds came to meet us there. when they showed up they were on their crackberries sending messages back and forth, and they did it the whole time. They were totally detached from the human social environment.” I’ve paraphrased here (para- is a great prefix). So being in the midst of such social detachment I began thinking about the statement, and necessarily deconstructing the performances that add up to such a disengaged posture. Keep in mind here that I’ve been dealing with the idea of human agency as particularly impotent when viewed at a global scale. Also, I’m reading technology as a determinate influence of social construction, much like weather, vis-a-vis Manuel DeLanda in War in the Age of Intelligent Machines. So, what’s to say that people using their cellular devices in a seemingly dtached manner is not the residue of a new materiality of the social? That is, we’re not dealing with people that are detcahed from one another, just socializing differently; we continue to perform social incroporation, but it doesn’t seem like it. It seems like the current materiality of cell phones is more inevitable than undesirable. I would wager that within the next five years more people will have smartphones than regular cell phones.

Chris, I’m not trying to diss; I just used your comment as a departure for my pointology. I’m sure you know that, and I’m sure that this will generate some kind of conversation some time soon.

I’ve been listening to Mount Eerie’s No Flahslights on super repeat. Thanks Travis.

+

Imagine us being able to interact with the earliest known human beings–we would certainly seem as ‘aliens’ do to us.

Wouldn’t we?

Of Late:
I am taking a class on methods in the anthropology of sound and music. I read John Law’s After Method: Mess in Social Science Research. I enjoyed the book. I recommend the book. I am going to a do an ethnogrpahy of skateboarding for the class.

My disdain for the blatant mistreatment of dogs in the city baloons tot he point of outbursts. Many people have the tendency of walking with their dogs on a leash instead of walking their dogs. By this I mean that people pay no attention to the desires of the dog, and merely walk. This often resuls in the dogs being dragged when they stop to smell something or for other reasons. It doesn’t take much thoguht to realize that this must hurt the dogs’ feet as they scrape against the concrete. Disgusting.

The weather has been unpredicatable unless I check it through a widget before I go out.

I’ve been spending time with my friend Danny Coeyman.

I’ve also been spedning time with some friends from school: Yu ni, Sarah, and Maria. Also Maria’s boyfriend Guillermo, and Sarah’s boyfriend Tom.

I enjoy spending time with those people.

I manned a tap at a beer festival last Friday. I had more than enough fun, but not in an beeric consumption way.

I have performances coming up. On Monday the 18th I will be performing in a Cabaret to benefit Richard Schechner’s “Home New Orleans”. I will be performing with Randy J. Hunt. The performance will be at the Village Pour House. On the 28th I will be performing a solo work in AUNTS. Biba Bell–a classmate–has invited me to take part. I will be performing a solo for audience, and playing a recorded composition for one person at a time–seperate from the solo. I’ll provide more info soon.

School is great.

Every relationship has a finite threshold for giving and taking beyond which the relationship cannot exist; if one person gives beyond their capacity the relationship is pushed beyond its threshold and thus it ends, and the same goes for taking. Because these modes of interaction construct a binary for engagement their performance must constantly be assessed and adjusted; a constant deconstruction and reification takes place allowing a relationship to be maintained. In using the word assessed I am referring to the surveying of how much is being given and taken by each individual, and the subsequent adjustment by the opposite individual. If I am assessing how much I am giving and taking in a relationship then value is established solely in comparison to how much the other person is giving and taking–if we both give to the extent of x, and both take to the extent of y, then everything is equal, however if I give to the extent of 2x, and take tot he extent of y, and the other person gives tot he extent of y, and takes tot he extent of 2x then an imbalance is created. It must be noted that some relationships exist in a neccesary imbalance, that is the imbalance is their balance, from what I can discern these relationships have two possible outcomes: they attain balance, or they attain greater imbalance causing them to cease. I do not suggest that every relationship follows these postulations exactly, rathe that every relationship is subjected tot hese postulations to some degree.

To illustrate with absolutes: those relationships that require constant assessment are facilitated by an exchange of a lesser frequency and intensity; relationships that must constantly be assessed cannot facilitate massive giving and taking, likewise those relationships that require massive giving and taking cannot be constantly assessed; the greater the degree of assessment the lesser the degree of equal exchange.

Because the only way for us to assess relationships is to live them it becomes neccesarily difficult to facilitate those relationships that do not facilitate themselves; two individuals whose giving and taking postures do not accord well upon one another cannot expect to have an easily maintained relationship. However we must also assess the factor of engagement; to what extent does the relationship engage the individuals and cause them to actually live the experience of the relationship, rather than speculate upon it? I do not mean to suggest that those relationsips of massive exchange are neccesarily good, or that those relationships of constant assessment are neccesarily bad, rather my statements point to the ease with which relationships are engaged. Once the notion of engagement is involved, we must consider that relationships cannot be qualified according to standards of good or bad, because engagement–being an absolute and unqualifiable facet of living–supercedes ease; without engagement we have nothing, for as Merleau-Pomty said, “there is no inner man, man is the world, and only in the world does he know himself.”

So then relationships become not what we give, or take–these are only ways through which we can know the relationship–but how we are engaged, and how we read/value this engagement…