#020 reflections by Eduard.K

My impression about “Production of Space” (P.S.) in New York:
The P.S.-project, can be considered/analyzed by some fields.

One of them, could be the scientific field. If you consider it from the statistical/mechanical point of view, then it´s possible to recognise really our “real” or parallel world. What does it means?

Of course, we are every day to busy to think about the “real” or parallel world. But, let us look and analyze e.g. the “regular life” from a business men: ” he will stand up (maybe) early in the morning, take his breakfast and going to work 8 or 10 hours, he comes home, going (maybe) to sports ……….etc” .
Our day is pretty apparelled with such kind of plans respectively movements.
But the main question is, which of this plans or movements are “really” necessary for our person and which are only affected by our parallel world??
Yes, it is sound like a postulate (it could be). The answer is not so much different, from our expectations. Everybody have a natural knowledge of statistics. If we try to make e.g. a small decision:” ok, I have to buy flowers for my friends wedding etc..”. Then we go to the shop, to buy this flowers and suddenly, we come out with a bottle of wine….” . What´s happen? The plan was different from the result. Our natural statistical knowledge, try to improve the life, making decisions (subconscious mind). It can be a protector of losing to much ENERGY. But unfortunately, this statistical knowledge can also destroy us, (our minds, characters and bodies).

Sometimes, we are not able to differentiate our desire and then it could be that our subconscious mind, takes to much control about us and we are landing in the parallel world. Furthermore, it means that we could try all the time to make “the right” decisions or movements. The main point in this kind of connection are the ENERGY balance. It´s physically impossible to get or keep a 1 efficiency. This is of course also statically proofed and means the Carnot-Process ( heat-energy flows only from the warm-system to the cold-system).

The first thermodynamical law: U=Q +W : Q=quantity of heat; W=work; U=intrinsic energy. –>the energy in a close system have to be constant (all the 3-components need a balance).
The second law: it´s not possible to convert the hole heat in ENERGY, you have to lose a part–> W=- ∮Q –> =Q[cover] – Q[discharge]/Q[cover ]

 it means also, that every human lose or wins ENERGY in his life which are full of plans and movements and it´s irreversible process of course. Sometimes when we are losing a part of ENERGY, we can reach another form of it through the general balance (U>0 Entropy).

“Production of Space” it´s for me personal a fascinating idea to remember us on our volitional and unintentional movements that we “have to do” in this “real World” and which connect us to our parallel world. Of course, is P.S. also a nice proof to analyze, which plan/movement are conscious and which are subconscious. General, this progress can be also analyze as the Entropy –“measurement”-System in our entire life. And it is also a coincidence that it´s produced “only by humans”. But of course it´s not!! Every plant (tree, flower etc.) is involved in P.S. and hence in entropy (via Energy). If you damage e.g. a bottle, cut a tree or a flower, then every individual can approve a irreversibility of this “damage-process”.

Each broken piece of glass have after the damage-contact a individual position (U>0). We know now U is always >0 but what happens with our Energy? It´s lost e.g. that´s why we become older?

The answer could be ambivalent:

i) Our movements increase of course our energy economize negative.  we lose power with movement-action.
ii) But through this positive movement effect, we have the possibility to increase our Entropy. Balanced actions in our life, increase our “broken” glass of pieces yes, but all the humans in this dimension, are accompanied from the deterministic destiny to die (U>0). All we can do, is to try to improve the system.

Thank you for references of potential mistakes
Regards
P.S. is a can be solution to understand (maybe), a simple question:
Why?

#019 reflections by Lucas Kwong

…He spoke quietly, but with no excess of theatrics, about the urbanization of an industrialized society, and the effect it produces in collective psychology.  As a grad student whose life is lived from one theory text to another, I felt at home…but where was the “art”?  Where was the Dionysian eruption to displace the carefully reasoned Apollonian analysis of social relations?  WHEREFORE THE MUSE?

Ah, but all (good) things come to those who wait.  As I studied the way the lampshade hovered above John’s head (fez-meets-halo?), noises – a “pop” here, a click of the tongue there – began to texture the sounds (conveniently arranged as sentences) emerging from John’s lips.  Shortly thereafter, Jens solemnly walked up to John, mike in hand, to move his water from one side of the podium to the other.  The sounds Jens was emitting comprised a kind of soundtrack to John’s disquisition: as John spoke of regimented schedules dictated by industrialization, Jens made a noise not unlike an excited child’s impression of a Transformer morphing from Ferrari to Autobot.

Playfulness, a kind of gleeful subversion, thus characterized the rest of the evening.  At times I wasn’t sure whether Jens was sonically texturing John’s lecture, or vice versa: what if the real meaning resided in the onomatopoeias, the blips, the clicks, that Jens was spitting into the microphone?  As foreground and background blurred into one another, I realized that we were all bearing witness to the production of a new space: one intended not solely for kerygmatic revelation (this was, after all, a site of worship on Sundays), or for academic analysis, but for a collaborative deconstruction of societal expectations.  Maybe reclaiming space begins with reclaiming our own senses, rebelling against a society that trains our ears and eyes to locate meaning in the mere syntactical arrangement of words.  (Never mind that those words might signal the triumph of ideological mystification: see, for example, subway ads for Uniqlo that paint a fantasy of interracial harmony, thereby transubstantiating consumerism into social progressivism.)  Jens’ aural experimentation seemed to incarnate the possibility of emancipating ourselves from the specious system of signification that enmeshes us at every turn, late global capitalism’s self-destructing gift to the world.

“In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God…” The first chapter of John entrances us with the prospect of a Signifier that exists, in perfect union, not only with the Signified (the constructions of deity that exist in our minds, from Cosmic Santa to Patriarchal Policeman) but with an Ultimate Referent.  In a city plastered with logos, such a perfect union seems at least as impossible as the thought that a Nazarene carpenter could die for the sins of the world.  This is precisely why we need such experiences as that which Jens and John provided us with that evening.  In that space, we began to realize that hearing new possibilities – hearing the mutual indwelling of Signifier and Referent – could begin with listening to the noise underneath the nouns.

Lucas Kwong: reflections on the Performance „a discourse on space / strange possibilities“  – Performance by Jens Reulecke in cooperation with guestspeaker John Boy and Florian Erdle – 22nd September 2011, Allthingsproject, NYC