top of page
Search

Rencontre Bien Totale

Does knowledge need to be so closely married to history? Does the temporal depth of one's acquaintance with something/someone determine the validity of knowledge one has? "I have known him for ten years!" "I have made art for ten years!" I shall like to divorce the two, knowledge and history, and entertain other configurations. To start: Knowledge as wedded to the specificity of a moment; a specificity of various dimensions - sensorium, space, rhetoric. I know because I acknowledge the specific details of ---. Can I have significant knowledge of one moment, embraced and indulged with all of its physical, sensual, spatial specificity of that one moment of which to speak? Can one singular moment encompass a "RENCONTRE BIEN TOTALE" as Aimé Césaire writes, a DELICIOUS TOTAL ENCOUNTER? Can I know, with a single submersion under water, as another who has submerged herself many times, over many years?


We can never offer a "complete" archaeological record of "knowledge." We know that to be a futile effort left behind with modernist thought. Yet we still flirt with it, this desire to know more and to know enough. Yet, I propose moving past these flirtatious encounters, towards a polyamorous relationship with the world. "I choose to fully engage with you, and you, and you, and you, and to love you, and you, and you, and you. I will know each of you in the specific ways that you need.


Yet, I still long for a monogamous depth of knowledge.


15 views0 comments

Recent Posts

See All

Even When

We keep going. Even when the numbers add up too perfectly to leave mystery out. Even when there’s no space between all the chores for us...

The Finger

The finger points to the moon and says, "it is like this." Another finger points and says, "no, it is like that." While these two fingers...

II. The Known of the Unknown

Let me elaborate from the previous post and its injunction to "do what feels good," which may seem daunting, too abstract or straight-up...

Comments


bottom of page