Before discussing Cunha's groundbreaking work in subversive navigation, we wanted to afford our valued CLP readers, visitors, and commentators the chance to share their opinions on the crisis of SN.
For those of you unfamiliar with the topic, SN (as opposed to BC, or boundary circumvention) comprises a family of navigational practices including, but not limited to:
- Marking; also known as "dropping bread crumbs," this practice involves leaving signs, posts, or objects to guide walkers on the navigation back to the perimeter and for future navigations
- Overheading; this practice involves flying over labyrinths in order to identify the center and thereafter mapping out routes
- Positioning; a recent phenomenon, this practice determines positional coordinates, and employs GPS technologies to "clue" a walker to the center
- Chatter-plotting; a practice utilized by teams, this form of subversive navigation involves walkers pursuing different routes ("flanking") and communicating via cell phones or two-way radios to work towards the center
Posts
9 comments:
The ethical questions posed by SN are unique and challenging. That said, I am eager to read the responses of our readers. I am certain that most of you are aware of my strong feelings on the subject. It is true that SN has a firm basis in the development of the labyrinth. However, it is my opinion that our information age has brought about on an unquenchable desire to "control." This desire invades all aspects of our daily lives, including, regrettably, our approach to labyrinth exploration. I will not say that modern SN has yet risen to the level of a destructive force in labyrinth exploration. I will say however that recent SN techniques, such as positioning, trouble me greatly, and deserve our serious attention.
While my initial instincts as a labyrinth purist compel me to recoil in shock at the thought of "marking" one's way through a structure, I can't help but posit the inevitablity of the act. Consider for a moment that marking was rendered completely licit -- within days, no, hours, the labyrinth walls would be cluttered with the signs and symbols of fellow travelers, creating a literal palimpsest of the structure's surface. In this case, markings then represent one's intimate connection with those shadowy figures who have traversed the pathways in the past, as well as a connection with the labyrinth itself. I think Crete would agree with the idea that magnetism and flux are at least partially dependent upon the navigational patterns of the traveler(s).
In short, I suppose I would endorse more "traditional" methods of marking -- that is, the method of "dropping breadcrumbs." Like Mark, I fear the ramifications of more technological modes of positioning.
I think the questions being raised are:
How does technology affect the labyrinth experience?
Am I right or wrong to say that the issue is really one of cheating?
I am new to labyrinthology, and am just a simpleton to labyrinthology, so...some clarification would be great.
Excellent post, John. I'll be posting a very interesting interview with Cunha later this evening. I had a chance to talk with him on Monday, he's a charming fellow.
Teuton: Great question, as usual. Technology certainly does impact the essential nature of labyrinth navigation. In fact, Cunha's first book length piece treats this very issue, which he views as one of the most insidious crises facing contemporary labyrinthology.
Teuton:
SN should not be characterized as "cheating." SN, as the name suggest, subverts the cognitive navigation response of the labyrinth walker. In essence, it adds artificial stimuli to the navigational experience. Proponents of SN argue that the addition of stimuli to the navigational experience is not necessarily a bad thing. They argue that increasing awareness in labyrinth exploration allows the user to achieve a "new" cognitive connection with the labyrinth. Myself and others feel that the addition of non-native stimuli actually confuses the purpose of labyrinth navigation, but that is a matter for perhaps a later blog post.
Mark, your points are really intriguing, but don't they imply a pure experience of navigation is inadequate?
yo dudes we just blazed a crop of killer and started readin this and goddamn,, my boys and me are so down to get our labrinth on now.
I suppose if we consider the labyrinth from within the boundaries of its origin then SN are posit tools for the wanderer, who's only concern is to find the center no matter what. But for the leisure labyrinthian, as most of us are in this day-in-age, the use of any SN would be disingenuous.
Post a Comment