“The importance of dimensionality in both labyrinth construction and navigation cannot be overstated. Aside from obvious visual and aesthetic distinctions that exist between the two dimensional labyrinth and its more elaborate and interactive three dimensional counterpart, the essential nature of the 2D labyrinth provides us with a important opportunity to once again place labyrinth ethics under the microscope.
Let us examine first the being of the classical, 3D labyrinth. Its foreboding, monolithic structure and mathematical purity call out to us, entreating us to explore its manifold corridors. As I’ve argued elsewhere, the labyrinthian’s focused predilection to centrality is part and participle of human nature, and not the result of any discursive binarism. Simply put, while it is true that the navigation of the labyrinth is an essential part of its structure and must be treated as such, the allure of the center is not a phenomenon that need be avoided nor decried. From the perimeter of the 3D labyrinth, our experience of the center is, of course, mediated by boundaries innumerable. In short, it is a relationship marked by a rather extreme degree of occlusion.
What then is the essential nature of centrality and navigation in the case of the 2D labyrinth? You might be given to wonder - is our experience of centrality in these labyrinths so different? While it is true that our attitude towards the center is consistent in the case of both types of labyrinths, the 2D labyrinth brings with it a unique test of the labyrinthian’s ethics. Here, we are able, at all times, to see the center and our path to reach it without obstruction. Moreover, we are always able to immediately access the center. Boundary circumvention is as simple as walking easily over top of a painted border or small pile of gravel. As such, our proximity to the center is altered in manifold ways.
How different it is to stoically walk between the painted or stone laid boundaries of a 2D labyrinth, seeing both the labyrinth in its totality and, with complete transparency, our path to the center. The 2D labyrinth forces us to reevaluate our morality by way of the personal decision we must make which determines whether we will navigate said labyrinth in the same manner as we would a more complex, 3D labyrinth, or succumb to the alluring temptation of taking the quickest, easiest course to the center.”
Posts
8 comments:
Alex: Very illuminating. I don't think any one states the ethics of the 2D labyrinth as effectively as Smallencroft.
However, I think the 2D labyrinth and the 3D labyrinth have entirely differently teloi. The 2D labyrinth is a meditative tool in which the purpose of the labyrinth has become inverted. There is no experience of "getting lost," but rather, "getting found." I struggle to define 2D labyrinths as "labyrinths."
The ethics of boundary circumvention indeed poses enormous challenges in labyrinthology, especially given its pragmatic applications. But, in the end, how relevant is the issue to labyrinths if the 2D labyrinth is not truly a labyrinth?
We are definitely in agreement, John. I struggle with understanding 2D labyrinths as true labyrinths as well. Czes mentioned that one of the panelists, Philip Cunha (a new name to me, apparently he's currently a visiting professor at Tras-os-Montes), presented on the dialectic of foundness in the 2D labyrinth. I'll see if I can get a transcript.
Fascinating, truly fascinating. I do wonder however at the speed at which Smallencroft has revised his attitude towards boundary circumvention. I have, for some time now, been concerned that the alacrity in which he has repositioned himself (becoming, in effect, the preeminent subjectivist on BC) is due much in part to Crete's controversial 2005neutral-mode regression study on BC behavior.
I cannot see how Crete's bizarre treatment of BC could possibly impact Smallencroft's measured, tactful thinking.
m_asher:
I can only assume that you did not attend the Montreal Labcrit Society open roundtable last year. In the second hour, when the moderator shifted the discussion to BC analysis, the tension between Crete and Smallencroft became quite palpable. Crete, at one point, appeared to scoff at Smallencroft's answer to a panel question regarding linear BC subjectivism.
Yes John, Smallencroft's keynote vellicated one of Labyrinthology's oldest divisions between the diodecrete and triodecrete labyrinthians. I could just see the triodecs in the audience, who like myself and Alex don't see the 2D as a true labyrinth, steaming during Smallencroft's speech.
Crete's reaction in Montreal doesn't surprise me, an ex-student of his once told me about how he had flunked one of his students for building a pebble labyrinth on the college green.
Not to start an argument, but that story about Crete flunking the student is pretty widely acknowledged to be a silly rumor and nothing more. From what I hear, stories pertaining to his temper/mental imbalance are greatly exaggerated. He's eccentric, but not volatile or irrational.
Post a Comment