Constructivism and Recursivism

It may interest our readers to know that after years without communication, I’ve recently been in dialogue once again with my dear friend Jules Poulsen, labyrinthian in residence at Bursa University. Poulsen is perhaps the preeminent Reede scholar in contemporary labyrinthology, and despite his constructivist leanings, I find the majority of his scholarship to be well considered and quite important within the realm of our current epoch’s labyrintholgical studies. His is a constructivism which eschews Aaldian reductivism in favor of a more disclosive, quasi-ontological labyrinthology that still hinges on interiorist principles. Poulsen has been researching the Valdis Reede archives at Bursa for the last five years, and working on what will surely be the definitive edition of Reede’s labyrinthology. Apropos of the heated exchanges we’ve been having at CLP meetings of late about the dialectic that exists between recursivism and constructivism, I decided to consult Poulsen on the notion of such an interconnectedness, one that, if it exits, synthesizes important labyrinthological positions of two schools of thinking which seem, on the surface, to be diametrically opposed. Poulsen’s response corroborated several of my ideas, and proved to be quite elucidating indeed:

"... I think there are elements of Reede's text which, if properly considered, go a long way towards ‘bridging the gap’ between modern constructivism and recursivism. I am sympathetic to your position re: the dialectic(s) that exist between disparate branches of contemporary labyrinthology. As Bruun said, ‘labyrinthology x, even if it posits conflicting views as labyrinthology y, may still be shown to be a subset of labyrinthology y, and vice versa.’ We find evidence of such an interconnectedness to exist between Reede’s middle period quantalogical interiorism and the circumambulatory recursivism of Desmarais and Duverger.

In Reede’s text, though there is an Aaldian skepticism as to the nature/existence of the corporeal, extra-mental labyrinth as such, we find an ontological, almost Gollestenian reverence for the being structure of labyrinth qua labyrinth. Reede’s text prioritizes neither center nor perimeter, progression nor egression. His is a labyrinthology which at once calls for a radical skepticism on the part of the navigator with respect to his sensible faculties, and identifies the pre-predicative elements (corporeal and psychical) which constitute and sustain the navigatory experience.

Recall that Desmarais, in Il y a Seulement le Couloir, posits a very similar system of labyrinthological perception, but for different reasons. For Desmarais, questions about the corporeal nature of the labyrinth are problems which have been created by the constructivists and, in his view, are best left to the New Interiorists. In short, the ‘problem of body in the labyrinth’ is not a problem for Desmarais. This being said, Desmarais is, like Reede, concerned with the fundamental nature of navigation and its relationship to the being structure of the labyrinth at large. Desmarais charts the pre-predicative navigational experience by way of the navigator’s sensible framework, and comes up with a system of labyrinthology which, if idealogy is bracketed, is almost identical to that of Valdis Reede.”

This is precisely the kind of progressive, non-factious labyrinthology that we here at CLP are excited about. Look for Poulsen, along with Philip Cunha, to be a big name in the field in 2009. Anyone else have thoughts about the 'common ground' that may be said to exist between these two disparate systems of labyrinthology?

The Medial School

This rare daguerreotype photograph captures the principal five labyrinthians of the Medial School - Aaldi, of course, on the far right.

Left to right: Bohumir Šťastný, Pēteris Ozols, Valdis Reede, Achrif Laarbi, Kalev Aaldi

Edgar Milosovici and the Constructed Labyrinth

Although I, like most other contemporary labyrinthians in the continental school, revile many of Edgar Milosovici's labyrinthological positions, his writings have proved extraordinarily influential in our field. Certainly anyone with a sustained interest in Gollesten or eco/loco labyrinthianism must be well-versed in his thought.The following excerpt comes from Milosovici's Basic Questions of Psychical Labyrinthianism (trans. Patel), perhaps his most famous text. In this passage, Milosovici addresses the question of the labyrinth after Aaldi, reiterating his mentor's dismissal of the possibility of a non-psychical, extra-mental labyrinth.



"How can we, in the wake of Aaldi’s thinking, assess the question of the labyrinth? We might ask ourselves at this juncture, what is left for labyrinthianism? As Aaldi points out, the inner function of the labyrinth is now understood to be quantifiable. With skepticism cast over the possibility of an extra-mental labyrinth, we observe persuasive evidence of Reede’s position vis-à-vis the cognitive component of the labyrinth as ontological proof. Moreover, cognitive centrality has proved the locus of theory once more. Our engagement with the constructed labyrinth is a dualism.

The notion of the perimeter, posited initially by Scaruffi and since refuted in the labyrinthological project of Aaldi and the Medial School, has been destroyed. As Hume tells us in his Enquiry, “To form monsters, and join incongruous shapes and appearances, costs the imagination no more trouble than to conceive the most natural and familiar objects.” Such phantasy is the case with the notion of the perimeter, and the same may be said of the argument for the existence of any extra-mental labyrinth as such."