This morning I've been thinking quite a bit about the fundamental interrelatedness of SN (subversive navigation) and internav (intersubjective navigation). Marking, overheading, positioning, and chatter-plotting are all essentially intersubjective activities. With this in mind, I'm given to wonder, does the empathy that we employ to allow us to recognize the labyrinth as mine as well as the Other's ultimately do violence to the fundamental nature of our own subjective experience of the labyrinth as such? Are internav ethics unethical? Does approaching the labyrinth in such a way that it is not "in each case mine" threaten to void or alter the integrity of the being of the labyrinth?
Important questions indeed, and ones about which I would like to hear more discussion. Thoughts?
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
Posts
9 comments:
What is the alternative to intersubjective navigation? Sociopathic navigation? I mean, unless you're extraordinarily wealthy there are going to be other people in the labyrinth with you as you make your way through it.
Alex, these are critical, urgent questions. Allow me to ponder these.
Geoff: I certainly don't think that sociopathy is the sole alternative to intersubjective navigation. Recall that Gollesten pointed out the virtues of "letting one walk it alone." This passive attitude is, of course, far more acceptable than engaging in any antisocial navigational behavior.
Whoa! I know I am new to labyrinthology, but this sounds very much like Heidegger, am I right?
Teuton: You are correct to identify Heideggerian concerns in the subversive navigation and internav. Cunha, Logewnik, and Gollesten all cite Heidegger as foundational to their labyrinthological frameworks.
Gollesten indeed extolled the virtues of solitary navigation, and in many ways implied that such navigation perhaps does most justice to the experience and integrity of the labyrinth. However, Gollesten also recognized that the labyrinth is primordially für uns, or for us. While we must recognize the ambiguity inherent in "us," we also must recognize that Gollesten realizes that solitary navigation is not always true to our lived-through experience of the world. In other words, man cannot (and perhaps should not?) always navigate alone, because solitary navigation can be seen as a rejection of the Other.
So, the issue we reach is, although pure solitary navigation respects the integrity of the labyrinth, internav respects the integrity of the Other.
Internav ethics are necessary, then.
But what, exactly, constitutes ethical internav? Certainly the techniques of subversive navigation compromise both the labyrinth and the other.
Yo when are you dudez gonna make some CLP tee shirts and hoodies for me to wear. This stuff is wiggin me out. What would Gollesten do.
One love. Smoke one.
What about if you come across a wounded or starving walker as you navigate? The ethical move would be to help them get back to the perimeter, right?
Of course, Dylan, although there are some rogue labyrinthologists who would dissent. See Cunha's short essay, "The Well-Being of the Other: Some Thoughts on Physical Internav."
I can't believe this exists!!! Consider me smitten, I had no idea such people existed in Cincinnati!
Post a Comment