TABOO - TRANSGRESSION - TRANSCENDENCE

I am struggling with “hierarchy” – the recurrent principle of inclusion or exclusion – performed by supposed authorities when I would prefer the “doing”/practicing knowledges to be more than working on the fixity of their presence in systems.

I have a principle: in order to fight the conditioning, the consensus of knowledge and references to be used by “the” system of knowledge – that is a political construction of a supposed collective identity – I refuse to use in my articulation references “suggested” in the sense of imposed by external voices or others. I believe there is enough spaces to maneuver a thinking that remains free from conditioning. Thinking is something else than responding to injunctions of imposed norms. Knowledges need to be kept in movement as much as language needs to be understood as a practice – a “social praxis, a semiotic activity susceptible of subjectivation and emancipation” (Canut, p.9. trans. Cogne).

I probably mentioned that the circulation of knowledge does not build on the use of the same vocabulary by the people involved in the situation, so several systems of knowledge called in a communication are welcomed. I see communication as the ultimate result of acceptance of others' ways of thinking. We understand each other when we have accepted that we do not use or belong to the same system of knowledge, and it is only through the concept of conversation (that focuses on the “how”) that we can reach a profound exchange and a state of being with. In other words, each of us accepts to read what the other one is sharing without fixing the projection/understanding we may have on what the other one has articulated. Communication is not fixed and relying on words.

Canut, Cécile. 2021. Langue. Anamosa.