I imagine a puzzle, often, perhaps of a few hundred pieces, perhaps of countless thousands. I do not know what image it holds – if any – and I do not know if all the pieces even fit. And yet on each there exists a full picture, with its hand held in tandem on a tightrope between reality and representation. The piece exists in liminal space, a juxtaposition between a Velázquez and visual ambience, a masterwork and a mere arrangement of energy. It is purely optical; there are no holds to accompanying taste or smell or balance or sound, and even when held right to the light one still feels as though they hold nothing.
If we read Geertz then time and being become inextricably linked, at least in the symbolic sense. Yet our puzzle pieces by necessity exist outside of either. Between ourselves, we may possess any number of pieces at any point, not for any measure of inequality, but for who we are as people trapped in time, despite a constant unfolding becoming. In two separate, dynamic concepts, the uncertainty principle arises. We cannot define one without losing our grip on our understanding of the other. Thus we enter another paradox in our puzzle; to place one piece seems to imply a loss of concept surrounding another.
There is variation and uniformity in the pieces but not as a dualism; rather, it shifts in perpetual motion of rainwater falling up and down, propelled either way by Maxwell’s demon in a fundamental rejection of entropy, at least for a brief moment outside time and being. This is the glory, or at the very least – always the least – the potentiality of being constantly suspended between collectivity and individuality. This is something we still must embrace and overcome, despite our strides in doing so (and my obvious preaching to the choir throughout all of this).
This project above all presents something new. We have learnt and unlearnt, wrestled with form and purpose, and tried in earnest to generate an organic direction. For all this I am appreciative, and am glad that we are in a position now to create and collate valuable knowledge in ways free of typical constraints. My criticism that we took a long time to get to certain points may be more a criticism of the linear progression of time than one specifically directed at ourselves. I still have my concerns moving forward, but I will do my very best to not let them get in the way of anything.
I have always tried to work with knowledge in a concrete but holistic sense, inspired in part by reading Douglas Adam’s Dirk Gently at a young age. My thought processes often work a little like the wikipedia game – hours of fun to procrastinate to if you’re not already familiar – nothing can truly be separated from anything else. This is the place where the meditation above comes from; not a rejection of binary choice, per se, but a rejection of the necessity of choosing a singular option within a spectrum and not being able to pursue a multitude of uncertainty across its entirety. I am aware that this draws us to a precarious epistemological parapet, not least because of its lack of pragmatism in a world where we must move one way or the other. But that should not stop us from considering it in the slightest in our own ways of thinking. The cat in physics is potentially both dead and alive, yes, but now it is dead and alive and all things outside and in between.
On a further and final note, studying anthropology has taught me to incessantly (almost obsessively) qualify every point and criticism I make, and so I hope my next point is situated within the post-binary, holistic field I have tried to create here. My primary, and perhaps only concern moving forwards, is that this remains the future of ‘our’ university, and not the future of our own processes within it. We should not shy away from the fact that, despite much being out of our scope, there are real, diagnosable problems with our university and education system that we may be able to find and propose radical solutions to. I know that manifestos are a dime-a-dozen, and that sometimes it can feel as though you’re running into a brick wall trying to present even the most well-researched, concrete solutions to this institution. But at the end of the day, after all our reflections, do we not owe it to ourselves and our fellow students to at least try?
The puzzle must fit together somehow.
I’ve put my explanation at the end so as to allow for a full reading first without being influenced by it, as I’m a firm believer in comparing interpretations to intent. Whilst he may be a controversial figure in our group, the first reading I ever did of Foucault was not on punishment or sexuality or power, but a rather wonderful passage on Velázquez’s ‘Las Meninas’, which to him signifies the shift between the European classical and the modern, and opens up a broader discussion on the nature of representation over reality. Inspired by this, I found myself leaning heavily on metaphors from my very (almost painfully) crude understanding of key concepts in physics to discuss a grand old puzzle of collective and individual action, and our places in piecing such a thing together.
Hi Ollie! First of all, thanks for posting your reflection! I’ll write a kind of review and response to it.
You have a really good writing. You used an academic style but used it with freedom and made it personal, which I find interesting.
The puzzle metaphor is interesting and confusing at the same time, hard to grasp, just as the puzzle you describe is. The beginning of your reflection uses specific language and references that I do not always get (probably not coming from a literary degree) and is sometimes a bit heavy. However, I can still get most of the points you’re making.
The criticism about the course is constructive and interesting. I like the fact that you used several paradigms, such as looking at productivity through linear and non-linear time. You have a thoughtful perspective on the tension between being too much self-reflective and trying to find concrete solutions. I would also say that the only fact of this course existing and us trying to make it work is already some kind of concrete thing happening: we are building a model that could be replicated and learnt from. Especially when it is the first year running of the course, when next years will have our reflections to guide them, leaving them more time to focus on outwards. And yes, I completely agree what we should at least try, the intention is key!
A little reflection on confronting a wall when it comes to present change to management: from having discussed with them several times during the occupation and the making of this course, they’re not that hermetic, and I think that they often have good intentions. For example, they did let us run this course and many of them support it! The only think is that they have such a different perspective that it is sometimes hard to understand each other.
Thanks again for a great piece, I enjoyed reading it and reflecting on it!
Hi Ollie!
I think you write beautifully, and whilst I agree with Gabi that a few references were lost on me, it is clear that you have put a lot of thought and consideration into this reflection both in regards to its content and style.
I think I have had similar issues to you in this course regarding the lack of concrete intentions and I agree that a discussion should be had in regards to how we can take what we’ve achieved within the group and use it to address the very real problems that we have identified within the university system. Hopefully the second semester will be a step towards addressing these concerns.
Despite not being familiar with all of your literary references, I really appreciated the link to Douglas Adams. I hope that we can all one day take Dirk Gently’s holistic approach towards academia and education, amongst other things.
Once again, beautifully written, a good read, thanks!