‘without the risk of failure, of getting lost or being “adrift”, there is no real openness to the unknown, to the new thoughts that might emerge from the yet unthought’
This resonates enormously – we are so indoctrinated from an early age that we must ‘do things right’, not fail, ‘get on the right path and stick at it’ – that it is really difficult to enter the terrain of risking failure (whatever failure might be?)
I like the way that Fisher and Fortune’s contributors quote from Irigaray so much – she (and Julia Kristeva) have always seemed to me to be integral to this whole discourse on apophasis/ negation/ not knowing/ tacit knowledge. Interesting that tacit knowledge isn’t mentioned at all, and that papers on tacit knowledge don’t mention the unknowing traditions. Isn’t tacit knowledge a misleading term? It is about the ineffable, that which we know but of which we cannot tell. I’m not sure whether inarticulable knowledge and unknowing are the same, but it seems to me that they are very close to one another on the same spectrum.
Words are interesting – ‘not knowing in one regard can be the occasion for drawing on other kinds of knowledge’….. can the act of drawing and reflecting on drawing (especially fairly quick and unmeditated drawing) contribute to the pursuit of unknowing?
‘this knowledge will emerge between the vital materiality that we are and that which we encounter and with which we interact.’ ‘It is in this between, perhaps, that the creative practices of art and thought can take place.’