ama7 sqit hi mary
great to hear from you I'm happy to respond
please find my reply interspersed below rhizomes amongst rhizomes
these are pretty much unedited ideas quickly written down you might
want to read my responses or selected responses rather than hand them
out because of their unfinishedness
if something seems to crazy or nonsensical you might want to leave it out
though myself I would probably read what might seem to have some value
for the students
kukwstum
peter
On 5-Mar-08, at 12:59 AM, Mary K. Bryson wrote:
Hey there Peter
My whole class watched your talk from the summer Institute, and were inspired to write you questions, which I promised I would pass on, knowing you could not respond to them all. But if you felt inspired to respond to one or two, I will pass the responses back to the group.
++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
Identity
As someone who speaks clearly about the importance of aboriginal people representing themselves in academia and not being researched by non-aboriginal people, who is included as aboriginal? Is it okay for one aboriginal person to speak collectively for all aboriginal people?
I think that we are all troubled by the seemingly binarized nature of the english language and of academic argumentation
essentialism itself and other isms and arguments against them do not seem to me to move the idea of ab/originality into
a meaningful venue it's like okay let's make a different stew we've tried the pomo stew now lets have a post structural
ragout or an existentialist miso or let's see what paulo freire has in his pantry is this evolution in some direction with
some consistence is there a place 'to' which it is evolving or is it just about a bunch of meaningless brilliance rotating
about the dead star of language which might itself (indeed I use language to say this) in considerable disarray and want of
meaning (more language!)
how does the idea of 'preposition' even work when you move it between conceptual-ontheground-languaged spaces?
how do you go 'into' an idea is there an 'in' an 'into' can there be a trans-fer from 'branch' to "branch" and what is the 'to'
is it the movement remember movement is a noun it doesn't go anywhere if we go from macro to micro within language
it's like trying to say okay newtonian and relativistic physics can coexist okay numbers are used mathematics new rules
arise from people the laws of nature come from people the laws of nature are words and if you say them aloud they
come alive the carbon dioxide that comes out of your exhaled breath gives life to plants which reciprocate but the
carbon dioxide comes out anyway even if you don't say anything
there are some similarities with respect to philosophy/worldview shared among many first nations however it is problematic
to generalize and assume that we're all the same when I was a kid when I heard the expression 'talking indian' I used
to think that all indians spoke the same language in a way indigeneity is itself a kind of language in that it has within it
a sense of respect for the land at least in a traditional sense after aboriginal people are streamed through euroeducation
they can become changed as to how they think about the land does this in any way deaboriginalize them L ab origine from the
beginning how can the de- find any meaning when the ab- is already there?
I am not saying that nonaboriginal people should never research with aboriginal people what I do think is that aboriginal people
should always be primary investigators or at least co-primary investigators of research projects which relate to aboriginal people
I also feel that aboriginal people should think first of doing research with/in their own community so as not to appropriate or alienate
or copyright others' knowledges how do we deal with the copyrighting of research findings the virtual stealing of aboriginal
intellectual property I think that intellectual property laws in canada need to be less biased toward supporting industry and economic
growth and the pleasure of the queen (!) and more about laws that actually protect rights of the first peoples the consitutional and pre-
constitutional and extra-constitutional rights and especially relationships (since rights move us into a western realm of jurisprudence)
as a scholar I don't speak for all stl'atl'imx people let alone other groups I have to couch my talk in who I am where I am from
how I have learned what I know my authority has to be within that space and flow aboriginal people are very often as
much visitors where they live as nonaboriginal people most of the people from my community live on sto:lo territory we have
to speak there as guests but we have to speak as people of the land with the land for the land of course over the millenia
we have intermarried so our relations are very much part of a very large circle within sw british columbia and south eastern vancouver island
for whom does one speak if one is using automatic writing as part of one's methodology or data from dreams or visions or hallucinations?
and what of the intervention of reason within the process of utterance? do we wear shoes or pieces of leather glued together with pieces
of rubber and glue and foam and nails? do wear the labour of maquilladoras
look at laura (riding) jackson's ideas about the rational and language and her antipoetical stance
whoever wants to celebrate their aboriginal heritage is I feel aboriginal otherwise they can talk about themselves in some other
fashion other/wise alter/natively
Are there any postcolonial scholars that you identify with?
no I don't talk about postcolonialism I see it as a euroconversation
anybody who is trying to be part of aboriginal self empowerment is doing something that is very important
Why do you speak from a position of collective knowing (i.e. "us")? Who else are you speaking with and/or for? Is this collective material or imaginary?
although I make some effort to not overuse the word 'why' I remember the late chief jake thomas say me I don't use that word because
it means I am questioning the creator it is difficult to speak in english without at least gesturing toward the idea of whyness
according to an online etymology dictionary why (from old english hwi) is the instrumental case (showing for what purpose or by what means) of hwæt (what), and the dictionary goes further back to protogermanic and old norse proto indoeuropean) so I am thinking that you are
saying for what purpose do I use the position of collective knowing?
when I talk I sometimes think of the zoom lens of a camera or of the imagination and how when we want to see the individual the I (s/he/it/one)
we probably zoom in when we want to see more of a context we zoom out which is where we and us and you s/he/it/one come in
(usted Lei one the royal we)
for me the 'we' comes from the aboriginal people I have met including myself how does this 'I' negotiate itself with(in) the community of other personal pronouns and how can the idea of 'I' negotiate anything the personal pronoun doesn't do it at least that is not the usual
understanding there is a symbolic process which takes place
am I made up of many I's a multiplicity of subjectivities how does I + I = we or us how does addition work when you are adding
substantives themselves rather than the number (1 one) of the substantives (you can't really add apples whereas you can add the numbers assigned to the apples) what is the process is it meaningful? is it one which develops when we are infants learning our language in a very deep way? if there is no 'me' or 'I' can there be a we? how does this we develop? it depends on what you are trying to prove otherwise people just talk philosophy taken to extremes can make language and communication meaningless absurd (or it can point out the meaninglessless and absurdity) or not even meaningful enough to be meaningless
grammatically my understanding is thus: the 'we' is the first person in the plural form it is a grammatical construct a conveyor of relational meaning the individual I's she's he's its one's when we use the verb 'to be' in english (is are am was were been seem) the subject and the object are brought into intimate relationship there is accord agreement
I am you we are them it is we you seem tired it was I grammatical agreement predicate nominative predicate adjective case relationality
when asking a question one is making a lot of preparatory presumptions when one uses the term 'or' it complicates the answering
because it limits the possible direct answers
it would take too long to really answer this question and in the end it might not really be meaningful to anybody who is really trying to
communicate
While watching the video of the lecture (which was excellent - thank you) I was struck by the similarities between the struggle for First Nation inclusion within the ivory tower and the feminist political movement.
Considering that women, including all cultural and social backgrounds, are grossly under represented in academia, continue to earn significantly less when we do reach academic position, and are habitually studied by the white male researcher, which surmounts to little, if anything, more than glorified girl watching, where do you position (if at all) feminist politics within your work?
the ivory tower hmmm which brings to mind tusks the elephant trade killing walruses narwals and those ancient habitations made of tonnes of mammoth bones including tusks
I support women in their struggles and have sat on the equity committee at yorku for 5 years and at uvic for 2 years in such a role I think that other people have to determine from my writing and speaking what my position(s) is (are) how do I support women without speaking for/instead of them?
one thing though aboriginal people must be more than just another equity seeking group constitutionally this is important and in terms of
situating ourselves we have nowhere else to call home but this western hemisphere we cannot be deported
I remember taking a course in the early or mid 80s on the representation of women in film it was an eyes opener it was the last film studies course
I took because I had taken them all and it was the one that really struck me research is about voyeurism it is about intruding obtruding
extruding it is a kind of surgery questions are like shovels they dig into they are instruments of invasion as is the gaze
some people make great effort to not overhear the words of others they feel they have no place in that space no right to hear what is not
'about' them some people are affronted when they accidentally overhear/overlisten to what was a secret communication affronted because
they feel as if they have intruded into private space
I did feel out of place in the feminist film studies course I was there to learn rather than to become an expert on
the aboriginal peoples of australia some of whom I have met speak about men's business and women's business we can learn from and with
one another by respecting
Aesthetics
Your writing is also an invitation to immerse oneself in a kind of aesthetics; an aesthetics that, in my perspective, creates an enigma to later produce a new understanding of that which is questioned in your writings.
What is your personal purpose when integrating aesthetics to your writing?
although I began my phd in arts education and switched to curriculum theory & implementation I suppose I have been infected with ideas
of aesthetics but I do not make any effort to ground my writing in such ideas I am drawn to them because what is spoken of as
aesthetics is an intimate relationality we are swallowed into the sacred spaces of art we are transported across time and away
from our time as I say I do not make efforts to integrate aesthetics into my writing I have written hundreds or probably thousands of poems
I have written stage plays screen plays film/dance/theatre/art/book reviews stories what I hope to do is to not write within a genre
my purpose is not necessarily to flee genre but to let a higher let us say part of myself do the writing using the reference of my mind/spirit/body
to act as a kind of monitor/editor I don't write rather I do believe that I am the written except in those highly disastrous times that I try
to take on the role of writer when I say (which I do not) that I am a poet playwright reviewer and so forth I set myself within a
particular(ized) genre it is not a place where I particularly want to be I feel confined by the definitions even to say I am a writer
I say so as to participate in public converse if I really said what I really thought I would say nothing perhaps I would hum or make
scat sounds the thinking trips over itself the language talks about itself and is trapped in of by with meaning(lessness) I do not
make efforts to base my ideas on aristotle plato rousseau western philosophers I prefer the lived philosophies of novels poetry
dramatic presentations storytelling
What are some meaning effects that you have experienced to have had on reader subjects when called upon aesthetics?
I'm not sure what you're getting at there are always ...ellipses they join us with the unspoken unwritten I do not spend a lot of time
thinking about meaning because I feel that in order to really connect I have to explore my own thoughts and feelings and experiences
so that I can participate in regenerating rather than continually generating new thoughts I suppose it is difficult to get away from the
thoughts that come with language but I reach out to that handandarmandpresence that reaches to me from other times other essences
not wanting to be filled but wanting to participate not searching for meaning but for yes 'beauty' I guess you could call it to use an
english expression but it is the nouminous the arcane the mystical that I am enthralled by and am in some fear of
Post Knowing
Kwe Kwe! Peter!
My question relates to the passage on page 450, " legitimate discourse
within sanctioned institution of post-knowing ". Do you use the word
'post-knowing' to address a particular period in history? Is the word
used in a broad sense to encompass or re-invent the terms such as
post-colonialist and post-modernist ways of knowing? The terms Post
colonialism and post-modernism have created such a fixed 'knowings'
that is might make more sense if we start from scratch with a new
word for a new period.
Meegweetch Peter.
ama7 sqit
many times in my writing another force actually takes over and uses what is in my mind
at least that is one explanation I have one way I understand what is going on
when I think of all the post-xxx's incl semiotics I think about words talking about other words
about meaning being about words the word itself can never actually land on the branch
of the 'actual' world and nest there the word can only reside in wordland language
except when it is spoken or gestured (sign language) then there is sound and rhythm
and in theatre pause silence and beat
when I think about post-colonialism I think okay 'they' haven't gone back to wherever they
came from and they have not taken all of the effects of colonization with 'them' so obviously
this is not the kind of meaning that post colonialism is inferring so it must mean that now
they're colonizing posts (pulp and paper clear cutting) I also sometimes include post
grape nut flakes as one of the post-xxx's
the post knowing for me is a gesturing to a space that language cannot really reach or get to
in any way but it can be a lot of other things depending on where my mind is at when
I think about it in a way meditation can be a place of post knowing doing can be a place
of post knowing or okay 'I know' now what? or so what? it is a story in itself a writer has to write
in such a way that there is space for the reader space for the reader to participate and create
re(-)create meaning or whatever else they want to create (or whatever they want to do)
I have for a long time written or thought in such a way that for me I treat every word as if it were
a cliché and they are not just expressions but words denotations each one etymology is
like a genealogy for words it talks about their ancestors but this is also called consensual
reality words exist in communities logoville sprechtlant villages outposts
often I feel as if it doesn't really matter that much what we say or how we think if all we are going to
do is deal with a conceptual world a conceptual reality (which probably in many cases resides
within wordland/language) 'where' is this conceptual world this talk about talk is it in a little
talk babblebubble beside our heads? okay there's talk more talk more talk about talk and meanwhile
nobody's walking nobody is in the world of their bodies or followup because the naming has denecessitated
the actual thing 'branch' because the word 'branch' has taken over nouns are names though
I suppose we can noun something which is what medusa ostensibly did although standing motionless frozen
petrified is about having doing and being so doing nothing is actually doing something
in laura riding jackson's later work
she writes against poetry she writes about reason she writes against the idea of synonyms
when she was younger she was a celebrated poet
maurice blanchot writes about the loneliness of the writer and so do lots of people including novelists
philosophers poets songwriters storytellers those are great places to explore