play room


Thinking is Praxis. One need not attempt to construct an understanding of the two as so divided that theory becomes powerless/futile, and praxis becomes arbitrary. Praxis as ‘actioned’ in this divide can be described by the following play;

Let us take this paragraph as; (Theory). As a reader, the author in «This Sentence-» is making an explicit request that you replace the following bracketed symbol- (~), with a different one. There are many possible replacements, for example (7, *, “, /, h, -, Q, etc.). This particular ‘wiki’ medium allows for such changes/replacements to be made. We can imagine that the symbol in the brackets has been replaced numerous times by different readers. In changing the symbol, the reader takes action. This paragraph as theory is determined not to be ‘merely theory’, and so directs itself towards praxis and action. Perhaps the will to ‘do’ of the reader is satisfied by the act of replacing the symbol, writing themself into the action.

The problem is this; as a theory divided from and directed towards praxis, the action produced is self-serving, and merely reproduces itself arbitrarily. The danger of this ‘praxis’ is that it constructs the illusion of effective action on the part of the reader. However, upon second glance, this ‘effective action’ reveals itself to be mere series of replaceable symbols; the flashing of lights through a smokescreen of the ‘praxis’ that stands across the divide from ‘theory’.

There are many scenarios in many contexts outside this immediate one where the described action is played out. (;) may be just another such symbol between brackets, but it is one that has no intent on looking over the divide or worshipping praxis. The Internet as a medium, being ‘virtual’ in nature, bears a complex relationship to praxis. Thus it is a suitable home for this type of ‘activity’, this play, which remains indeterminably either completely ‘theory’, or completely ‘praxis’.

If in reading <these^paragraphs> or even the word- ‘co-elaboration’ you assume the position of being spoken/written to, being told what in fact ‘co-elaboration’ is, then the ‘play’ starts to deteriorate into the divided ‘theory’ warned against above. The ‘play’ becomes a co-immunity thing (a co-elaboration and not a lecture) in the power of the reader to change the sentence; co-elaborating what it is to co-elaborate.

Unless otherwise stated, the content of this page is licensed under Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike 3.0 License