how do we speak with each other?

how does this happen?

what are we doing when we speak?

are we producing our speech or our lips are moved by the words who wanna come out?

are the words in or out?

do we spit them or do we eat them?

is the speech already written somewhere ? (as if we read what we are saying)

which is the relation between a word and the image it opens?

and between a word and all the constellations of words which immediately connect to it through

grammar or language specificity? *

and between an image I see and the word which appears in my mouth?

which is the relation with the other speaker?

which is the relation with her/his words?

can we have a conversation without understanding each other?

which is the space we enter through words?

how does change the border between me and the other while we are having a conversation?

what is different in having sex?

is the presence of the other necessary to have a conversation?

​

The director Anne Bogart shares these words on the website of her theater company, about

conversation as it has been proposed in the practice of the composer John Cage.

“The composer John Cage was a world-class conversationalist. He loved the

pluralistic delights of conversation, but he did not care for debate. For him, a

conversation is a work of art with more than one creator. From the Latin, the word

conversation suggests “to turn with.” By the end of a conversation you might well

have switched points of view with your partner; you may have turned together.

Philosopher Amos Bronson Alcott said, “Debate is angular, conversation circular and

radiant of the underlying unity.” Conversation does not flit from one subject to

another, rather it is sustained with intention and attention. It demands cooperation.

In a debate, argument takes priority and the activity assumes a right answer, or

that one argument has greater validity than the other. While debate is often

between two options, conversations are more open to multiple points of view.

Conversation demands skill, patience and openness and requires us to listen for

nuance and open spaces. We learn to recognize other voices. We learn to listen”
http://siti.org/conversation-or-violence

​

​

in the conversations I propose the other seems not to be always implied.

lot of the conversation, the writing itself, happens “alone”

nevertheless some kind of otherness is implied.

others can be the words , or one word, can be a voice I do not understand, a

sound, an object, also an "empty space".

this other manifests itself as a fetish, as something which is there, at the place of a

constitutive absence.

the speech itself is a fetish.

it draws the map of the geography around these absences, which can never be

reached.

it turns with, it dance around the absences

it turns on images.

I am not referring to the melancholic or romantic absence of someone or

something lost. I am speaking about the absence as something constitutive. The

lack of the other into ourselves. so the presence of the other in every self as

something that miss.

as something that can never be possessed if not in its absence.

the reluctance is constitutive.

it s around this lack, that we dance, that our borders redefines.