Georges Bataille _ Pure Happiness

Various fundamental possibilities (from the philosophical formula: the absence of time responds to the absence of every concept or the perfect intelligibility of the mo-ment; or Absolute Knowledge dissolves in Absolute Nonknowledge)

1. There was nothing to know.

2. Everything that we know is true, but on condition of disappearing in us (we know better in ceasing to know).

3. Desire having the absence of the object for its object, the absence of the concept, makes the concept the negation of value; consequently, value is refusal (and in all the apparent accepta-tions, through a ruse, there was what seemed accepted simply as the necessity of making the refusal rest on a given); refusal is the truth of being (God is self-loathing).?

4. Everything that is, that is intelligible, but seems better understood at the moment when I cease to understand it, is the foundation and limit of things. In this way, I go from nothing to becoming nothing (passively), then finally from becoming nothing (actively) to something worse than nothing. In the second case, the sacred is the loved object and, in the third, the sacred is the effect of my violation, of my destruction. The fourth case is despair.

There are several aspects of nonknowledge:

1. Going into the world of the possible up to the point where the possible agreement fails. To refer to the possible and since the impossible is there saying to itself that the possible is coming
to an end, it is as if it weren't coming to an end.

2. Beyond the possible, there is that which does not deceive us, as the possible obviously deceives us, since it comes to an end. Beyond the possible, I can erect what would not have the limit
of the possible. But I prepare for this end in projecting into the impossible a false response to my need for an impossible possible. Meanwhile, I can tell myself that this is something that won't deceive me the way something deceives me, I ready myself for self-deception.

3. Within human limits, knowledge is contradicted by numerous and complex movements.

“Inertia for everyone” or “Inertia of the hidden knowledge” or “Hidden knowledge for dummies” or “Inertia”.

Since the beginning of 2010, following the proposal of Eduard Gabia, we started to meet (almost every day), from Monday to Friday, between 3 and 7 o’clock p.m., in the Studio 1 of the National Center for Dance, Bucharest (during these meetings I only learned one dance movement but I started to play the base guitar). Our research theme became (was from the beginning) the hidden knowledge and inertia and the development of practices that would generate this knowledge. We will now try to define hidden knowledge (and inertia). We might not succeed but at least we’ll try.

Inertia is a property of matter by which it remains at rest or in uniform motion in the same straight line unless acted upon by some external force/an object’s resistance to change in its state of movement or repose.

As for hidden knowledge, Alfred Jarry defined a (pseudo)science he invented as “pataphysics”, “the science of imaginary solutions , which symbolically attributes the properties of objects, described by their virtuality, to their lineaments". In order to find this mysterious knowledge, we must accept the illusion of knowledge. Like Nietzsche said in “The Gay Science”, “I was awaken, all of a sudden, in the midst of this dream, but only to be aware that I am dreaming and that I must continue dreaming, otherwise I would disappear...What is “appearance” for me now? For sure, not the opposite of essence. Appearance is, for me, something alive and effective...among all these dreamers, I too, the “knower”, I am dancing my dance”. I don’t like the use of quotes for the presentation texts/statements, “I like cats with stripes” –Albert Einstein, seems just as valid to me. I think it’s sometimes ok to use quotes, it all comes down to how relevant they are and also, not everything should rely on the quotes.

In order to find the hidden knowledge you must accept the illusion of knowledge.

“Looking for the hidden knowledge”, in itself, is somehow absurd. I like to think of the hidden knowledge as something that reveals itself or can reveal itself at any moment, following any kind of action. Maybe it’s more like a state of mind. Any action produces knowledge or has the potential to produce knowledge.

We always thought about how we could define this “hidden knowledge”, what are the ways/ mechanisms that would help produce it? We don’t have a common answer so we would like to invite you to think about that as well.

This long period of time we spent in the Studio 1 of the National Center for Dance could be framed as a social experiment. The results are difficult to quantify and to shape into a performance. I think we might have accumulated a lot of potentialities and their latent state became more and more ponderous.

We came to a point where we believe we have to re-think the present as a moment when hidden knowledge reveals itself, so we should produce actions that are not reactions, that escape the “cause and effect” logic.

During the year, there were other people visiting us, during our research, in the studio. We challenged them and/or they challenged us to discover the hidden knowledge. In April we went to the Paintbrush Factory art space in Cluj where we had a first meeting with a bigger audience and at the end of May we had another encounter with more people during the Laboratory of Singular Perspectives in the frame of the Rennes Biennale.

We then had “a premiere” at the National Center for Dance. We thought of the fact that we will always have a “premiere”, every time we meet an audience, since everything is open and things always change and shape themselves according to the place we are in an the people we meet.

The five members of Rectifier Crew are : Maria Baroncea, Vlad Basalici, Eduard Gabia, Alexandra Pirici, Jean-Lorin Sterian. The project sometimes changed its direction but we stayed the same. Or not.

The experiment continues.

The text was written by Vlad Basalici and rectified by Maria Baroncea, Jean-Lorin Sterian, Alexandra Pirici and Eduard Gabia.

The projection of our identity. The formation of external identities. Lacan suggests that the effect 'Gaze' of the mirror can similarly be produced by any conceivable object. A chair or a television screen. so ...birou propose this practice: perform for the furniture, if not for the dog

“In putting honey on my head I am clearly doing something that has to do with thinking. Human ability is not to produce honey, but to think, to produce ideas. In this way the deathlike character of thinking becomes lifelike again. For honey is undoubtedly a living substance. Human thinking can be lively too. But it can also be intellectualized to a deadly degree, and remain dead, and express its deadliness in, say, the political or pedagogic fields.”

“ What comes” is not to be expected

The immanence of what comes is, for me, the immanence of consciousness translated into action and will power. Understanding your ability to shape, through action, the present and, implicitly, the future. The acknowledgment of creative power and energy as something positive, the will to act and to take responsibility for action as a result of thought. The transforming of passive into active through reducing wanted impact – not expecting the “reward”, neither immediate nor on a long term. “What comes” is not to be expected. Not projecting “what comes” but trying to observe, as accurate as possible, “what is already here” and act accordingly. Shifting the focus from “the world” to “ourselves”, from general to particular, starting the process of shaping the world with our self as the most accessible part of the world. Changing perspectives when looking at things and then making a choice, understanding “power” also as something positive when subordinated to awareness and thought. Expectations are to be left aside.

BIROU DE CERCETARE SI MANIFESTARE A PREZENTULUI CONTINUU

B.C.M.P.C este o structura mobila care isi propune sa urmareasca si sa consemneze forte interne si externe care determina modificari in spatiu si timp, in general si in particular, in micro si in macro.

B.C.M.P.C prezinta prezent continuu sub lupa, spectacol continuu.

B.C.M.P.C se angajeaza sa reveleze invizibil.

deasemenea:

B.C.M.P.C este autorizat sa intervina in orice spectacol, in gradini, pe strada, in sala de spectacol, reconfigurind aria de desfasurare, contextul, cu scopul de a umaniza actantii, dar si de a revela spectacolul in tot.

B.C.M.P.C organizeaza, prezinta spectacole pentru categorii de public dezavantajate - ciini, pisici si copii cu virste intre 2 si 4 ani

imi pare rau dar nu stiu sa folosesc blogul. citesc -unmarked the politics of performance - peggy phelan si ma gindeam sa postez cartea pe blog. nu cred ca e posibil. nu? Vlad!?

about visibility and unmarked. related with our BIROU - questioning the ideology of the visible as an eraser of the power of the unmarked, unspoken, unseen.

beuys - soziale plastik. e foarte bine expus la Hamburger Bahnhof pentru ca te obliga sa stai destul de aproape de ecran.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=k_k453_FSWE

∆©ƒ∂ß

NEANDERTHAL ELECTRONICS

BUM BUM BUM

BUM BUM BUM

ACUM

5 MINUTE NE GINDIM

ESTE CEEA CE ESTE

THE STARING MASTER

INERTIA CUNOASTERII ASCUNSE

FOTOGRAFIE NU CARE OI MOI

FOTOGRAFIE NU CARE DOI

FOTOGRAFIE NU RAMIFICARE DOI

HITTING PILLOW HITTING

PURPLE BATTERIE WINGS

IUBI

MA

GANDESC

LA TINE

PRAF DE STELE GINDIREA OBOSITA

AVEM INFORNATIE

INERTIA CUNOASTERII ASCUNSE

K Foundation - Burn A Million Quid

The Staring Master

You can run
You can hide
You can play spades on the other side
Bu there nothing really you can do
When The Staring Master is staring at you
‘Cause nobody is faster
than the staring of
the staring master

A vedea inseamna sa ai contact vizual cu lumea.
nu cere nicio pregatire, niciun antrenament. receptezi imagini.
A privi inseamna o intensificare a primului contact vizual.
manifesti interes fata de ceea ce privesti. intirzii asupra ceea ce privesti. distingi si discerni.
A te holba insemna a fixa obiectul privirii.
pina la contopire. patrunzi in el si el in tine. distingi, discerni si intelegi.

Sint mai multe feluri in care poti citi acest text. Te uiti la el, ca si cum l-ai scana, zimbesti la poza si treci mai departe. Sau il citesti, te gindesti un pic, iti trezeste ceva, iti suna telefonul, treci mai departe. Sau poti sa te holbezi la el pina cind literele isi pierd forma, cuvintele intelesul, iar pagina lay-out-ul. E un trip cu font mic, un pas inainte catre textul fara cuvinte.

Staring Is Not a Sport. Is the Sport. To become a Master you have to train for a lifetime.

Choose not to watch. Chose not to look. Choose staring.

Autopoiesis

Autopoiesis literally means "auto (self)-creation" (from the Greek: auto – αυτό for self- and poiesis – ποίησις for creation or production), and expresses a fundamental dialectic between structure and function.

The term was originally introduced by Chilean biologists Humberto Maturana and Francisco Varela in 1972:

An autopoietic machine is a machine organized (defined as a unity) as a network of processes of production (transformation and destruction) of components which: (i) through their interactions and transformations continuously regenerate and realize the network of processes (relations) that produced them; and (ii) constitute it (the machine) as a concrete unity in space in which they (the components) exist by specifying the topological domain of its realization as such a network. ^[1]

[…] the space defined by an autopoietic system is self-contained and cannot be described by using dimensions that define another space. When we refer to our interactions with a concrete autopoietic system, however, we project this system on the space of our manipulations and make a description of this projection. ^[2]

Even though others have often used the term as a synonym for self-organization, Maturana himself stated he would "never use the notion of self-organization, because it cannot be the case...it is impossible. That is, if the organization of a thing changes, the thing changes."^[5] Moreover, an autopoietic system is autonomous and operationally closed, in the sense that there are sufficient processes within it to maintain the whole. Autopoietic systems are 'structurally coupled' with their medium, embedded in a dynamic of changes that can be recalled as sensory-motor coupling. This continuous dynamic is considered as at least a rudimentary form of knowledge or cognition and can be observed throughout life-forms.

wikipedia

O carte de Humberto Maturana and Francisco Varela - Tree of knowledge
poate fi gasita aici

Experiments

A single word is spoken once into a tape recorder and the tape smoothly
spliced (without click) into a loop.The word is repetitively played back with
high rather than low volume. After one or two minutes of listening (from
50 to 150 repetitions), the word clearly perceived so far abruptly changes
into another meaningful and clearly perceived word: an “alternate.”After
ten to thirty repetitions of this first alternate, a sudden switch to a second
alternate is perceived,and so on.6The following is a small selection of the
758 alternates reported from a population of about 200 subjects who were
exposed to a repetitive playback of the single word cogitate: agitate, anno-
tate,arbitrate,artistry,back and forth,brevity,ça d’était,candidate,can’t you
see,can’t you stay,Cape Cod you say,card estate,cardiotape,car district,catch
a tape, cavitate, cha cha che, cogitate, computate; conjugate, conscious state,
counter tape,count to ten,count to three,count yer tape,cut the steak,entity,
fantasy, God to take, God you say, got a data, got your pay, got your tape,
gratitude, gravity, guard the tit, gurgitate, had to take, kinds of tape, majesty,
marmalade.

Citat din cartea lui Heinz von Foerster Understanding Understanding

Cartea poate fi citita aici

Parabola evreului

De mult, de mult, in Cracovia traia un evreu pe care il chema Eizik, fiul lui Yekel. Plin de datorii si coplesit de responsabilitatea unei familii numeroase, Eizik tanjea ca cineva sau ceva sa apara de undeva si sa-i usureze aceasta povara. Dar, nimic nu parea sa apara.

Intr-o noapte, Eizik a avut un vis ciudat. S-a vazut in Praga, capitala aflata la o mare distanta, stand pe un pod ce trecea peste raul Valtava, chiar langa palatul regelui. "Sapa!" - ii spunea o voce in ureche. "Chiar in acest loc este ingropata o comoara. Toate problemele tale se vor rezolva." Dar, cand s-a trezit, Eizik nu i-a dat importanta visului, crezandu-l doar o plasmuire a imaginatiei. Stia, oricum, ca nu are nici puterea, nici resursele necesare sa calatoreasca atat de departe.

Dar visul tot revenea. Noapte dupa noapte, el avea acelasi vis. In cele din urma, Eizik si-a dat seama ca nu va avea liniste pana cand nu va merge in indepartata Praga, pentru a verifica adevarul.

Cand a juns in capitala, epuizat si infometat, Eizik s-a dus direct la palatal regelui. Acolo, el a recunoscut podul din vis, locul fiind exact ca in viziunea sa. Dar podul era pazit de soldati. Cum s-ar fi putut apropia?

Atunci, pur si simplu, s-a hotarat sa spuna adevarul si revelatiile lui Eizik au provocat soldatilor un imens amuzament. "In ceea ce ma priveste," a spus unul dintre ei, in bataie de joc, "eu am visat ca exista o comoara, care este ingropata in Cracovia, sub cuptorul unuia Eizik, intr-o casa de evrei, si, acusica, plec intr-acolo s-o iau!".

Auzind aceste cuvinte, Eizik a avut, instantaneu, o sclipire. S-a intors repede la Cracovia, a dat la o parte pietrele din cuptor si acolo se afla comoara.

Cornelius Cardew - The great learning

De uitat la minutul 38.20

Cornelius Cardew - The great learning .

Ceea ce a facut Cardew aduce intr-o anumita masura cu ceea ce facem noi

E aici un text despre asta

The original Scratch Orchestra was founded on paper rather than in practice. Their manifesto, the “Draft Constitution,” was penned by Cornelius Cardew and published in the journal Musical Times as both their statement of purpose and an open call for members. The text describes the ideological and political leanings of the group, as well as illustrating specific improvisation-based performance practices that express these agendas.

HISTORY OF THE SCRATCH ORCHESTRA

In 1968 the Scratch Orchestra was jointly conceived by English composers Cornelius Cardew, Howard Skempton and Michael Parsons during a class on experimental music at London's Morely College. An outcry against both the traditional symphony orchestra and the hermetic musical avant-garde, the orchestra was to be democratically run by its members and include both amateur and professional musicians. Founded on paper rather than in practice, the group announced itself with the publication of the "Draft Constitution"-- a manifesto penned by Cardew-- in The Musical Times journal (see HERE for this text.)

The Constitution laid out the Orchestra's motives and method: "Definition: A Scratch Orchestra is a large number of enthusiasts pooling their resources (not primarily material resources) and assembling for action (music-making, performance, edification)." A number of improvisation-based exercises were proposed, as well as the stipulation that all members must regularly pen scores of “Scratchmusic” for the group (to "be accomplished using any means--verbal, graphic, musical, collage, etc.”) Announcing the date of their prospective first concert, the Constitution also served as an open call for new members. In the end the group was constituted by a combination of professional musicians, trained and untrained amateurs and a large contingent of performance-oriented visual artists; several members were from Leeds College of Art, including the well-known Fluxus artist George Brecht-- a faculty member there.

The orchestra achieved notoriety in its time-- they performed regularly in England, received government funding, aired broadcasts on the BBC and published a book of "Scratch music" excerpts with MIT Press. Concerts included works by such well-known composers as John Cage, Christian Wolff, Morton Feldman, and Cardew himself. But dissent between the "serious" musicians and Fluxus-inspired performance artists eventually brought about irresolvable tensions within the members. And the group’s interactions with the public sphere were no less thorny-- a controversial performance resulted in a smear campaign, with the press attempting to strip Cardew of his government grant money and tenure at the Royal Academy of Music.

Mirroring the global tendency for communalist leftism to revert to dictatorship, as Cardew's political commitments became more fervent he attempted to use the Orchestra to advance a distinct political outlook-- namely that of the Revolutionary Communist Party of Britain (Marxist-Leninist.) In reaction to the failure of the groups democratic premise, members started disrupting the group's own concerts through interruptions and protests. Discontent was addressed by the founding of the Scratch Ideological Group, a makeshift book club to study Marx, Lenin and Mao.

Though intended to unify the group's purpose, the Scratch Ideological Group may have been the final blow to the ensemble. The group officially disbanded in 1974.

A SCRATCH ORCHESTRA: DRAFT CONSTITUTION

The Constitution laid out the Orchestra's motives and method: "Definition: A Scratch Orchestra is a large number of enthusiasts pooling their resources (not primarily material resources) and assembling for action (music-making, performance, edification)."

Aici e linkul unde poate fi downloadat Cornelius Cardew - The great learning .

Alte texte :

Towards an Ethic of Improvisation Cornelius Cardew

Chinese Characters and Experimental Structure in Cornelius Cardew's The Great Learning

Untitled from Fjb on Vimeo.

Hito Steyerl - " A Thing Like You and Me"

http://e-flux.com/journal/view/134

phd.

"-(...)Oare nu trebuie ca spiritul vorbitorului sa aiba cunoasterea adevarului despre cele pe care le are de spus?
-In privinta aceasta,iata ce am auzit eu (...): ca viitorul orator nu are nevoie sa fi deprins ceea ce este cu adevarat drept,ci mai degraba opiniile multimii care hotaraste; si nici cele care sunt in realitate adevarate sau frumoase,ci cele care sunt doar socotite astfel. Din cunoasterea acestora de pe urma se obtine darul convingerii, si nu din aceea a adevarului."

ananasii

Lucky Pineapple is comprised of an unlikely combination of classically trained musicians, veterans of the Louisville punk scene, theatre performers, improvisational noise artists and even a first time performer. Since their inception in 2004, LUCKY PINEAPPLE have tried to play out of the ordinary shows including art gallery parking lots, Zombie Proms, film festivals, house parties, a student lounge at Transylvania University, as a musical interlude during a teen talent show at the Louisville Free Public Library, frequent appearances on WFPKs Live Lunch series and at Louisville Slugger Field, home of the Louisville Bats AAA baseball team. Live shows have included light shows, video projection collaborations, matching tuxedos, inflatable palm trees, a go-go dancer and a semi-regular group of back-up singers.

niste formule

V_{dc}=V_{av}=\frac{2V_p}{\pi}

V_{ac}=V_p{\sqrt{ \frac{1}{2}-\frac{4} {\pi^2}}}

V_{RMS}=\sqrt {V_{dc}^2 + V_{ac}^2} = \frac {V_p} {\sqrt 2}

Thus, the total amount of energy is the same after and before the full wave rectifier.

http://stream.sayurimichima.info/

Habarnam 2

Habarnam 1

Gummo - wrestling chair

am o teorie, ca o palarie

I am thinking about the world in terms of desires.Let’s take the desire to make it a better place.For everybody.Is it really for everybody?Desiring a better world for everybody implies that everybody is happy with the same thing.What is the common accepted idea of a better world? A world of freedom,a world where wealth distribution is not un-balanced,a world without corporations who control economy,a world without opression and violence.If this is the common accepted idea of a better world for everybody,why is it not so?why doesn’t everybody work and struggle to build this “better world” if this would deffinitely be better for everybody?Why are the people building the corporations still doing that?why do the people who opress other people are still doing that?Why do people still want to get incredibly rich at the expense of other people?Why do common criminals are still attached to their practice?. The problem is the term “everybody”.Not everybody thinks of a better world within the common accepted idea of a better world.Not everybody thinks about the world and in fact,those who think about the world actually think about themselves and how they would want the world to be. The overall perspective is usually a false one, built upon personal references and common accepted ideas,people judge and act according to personal desires,permanent desires,momentary desires.

Thinking of a system in which the world could function,be it hierarchic or anarchic means thinking about a way for everybody to coexist.Throughout history people thought of systems in which the world could function.Probably, each system was conceived to serve this idea of “a better world”. Somehow,every time things evolved in such way that this ideal world form was never reached. People found a way to use any kind of system in their own interest.Everytime,we started seeking for the problem within the concept of the system. Outside of ourselves.( just now, Marx’s communist doctrine is being re-thought and there were always accusations that it was misinterpreted).The capitalist system didn’t seem to be a good solution either.There is also the proposal of anarchy as a system but for me,the possiblity of anarchy ends with conflicting interests.And conflicts of interests could be avoided if everybody would want the same thing.On a large scale,history proved this impossible.And I think of the human being as something complex,beyond “good” and “bad”,with unpredictable impulses.I think of the human society as still being ruled by the law of the jungle: only the smartes and strongest survive .With all the fabrications of modern civilization,it still goes down to that. Power is never equaly shared.People’s desire to control and dominate cannot be controled,neither by law,nor by education.A common idea is that educated people are” better people” in the same sense of “better world” –people who want the “better world” , the common idea of a better world . The affirmation stands to some extent but then there are huge counter-examples (let’s think of Heidegger or the very rich,educated children of very rich,educated families owning banks and corporations). It only makes me think of the subjectiveness of this “better world” and that everything has to do with perspective.

I think there is no such thing as a perfect system that would allow everybody to fit in and fulfill everybody’s desires.I think we shouldn’t be looking for this system.I think this is exactly the problem,the desire for an external solution.This shifts responsibility from yourself to the “system”.You have to change “the system”.We always wanted to “think big” . To change the world as if it was in one’s power or as if it should be. Let’s think of examples of people who wanted to change the world and also had the power to do so. Most of them were conquerors and dictators. I think the only thing you can change and you should want to change is you, your attitude towards the world,to expand the way in which you can understand it. To give up the desire to control “the other”,even to “make him better” since you shouldn’t “make” anyone anything, people should only “become”, through their own will and their own judgment. All attempts to think of systems in which the world could function were faced with the unpredictability of human behaviour,with the unpredictability of human desires –even if the majority of desires can be controled –like in the consummerist system we live in,where they are amplified and shaped by the market - ,the desire to control cannot be controled. The very idea of validating your thought and proving it right at all costs has to do with the desire to control.Therefore I believe in thinking small, on a small scale,on a personal scale,doing your work of understanding the shape of things and taking whatever you want from that instead of trying to shape them.

experimental musical instruments

An experimental musical instrument (or custom-made instrument) is a musical instrument that modifies or extends an existing instrument or class of instruments. Some are created through simple modifications, such as cracked drum cymbals or metal objects inserted between piano strings in a prepared piano. Some experimental instruments are created from household items like a homemade mute for brass instruments such as bathtub plugs. Other experimental instruments are created from electronic spare parts, or by mixing acoustic instruments with electric components.

The instruments created by the earliest builders of experimental musical instruments, such as Luigi Russolo (1885–1947), Harry Partch (1901–1974), and John Cage (1912–1992), were not well received by the public at the time of their invention. Even mid-20th century builders such as Ivor Darreg, Pierre Schaeffer and Pierre Henry did not gain a great deal of popularity. However, by the 1980s and 1990s, experimental musical instruments gained a wider audience when they were used by bands such as Einstürzende Neubauten and Neptune.

Experimental musical instruments are made from a wide variety of materials, using a range of different sound-production techniques. Some of the simplest instruments are percussion instruments made from scrap metal, like those created by German band Einstürzende Neubauten. Some experimental hydraulophones have been made using sewer pipes, plumbing fittings.[1]

Since the late 1960s, many experimental musical instruments have incorporated electric or electronic components, such as Fifty Foot Hose 1967-era homemade synthesizers, Wolfgang Flür and Florian Schneider's playable electronic percussion pads, and Future Man's homemade drum machine made out of spare parts and his electronic Synthaxe Drumitar.

Some experimental musical instruments are created by luthiers, who are trained in the construction of string instruments. Some custom made string instruments are employed with three bridges[2], instead of the usual two (counting the nut as a bridge). By adding a third bridge, one can create a number of unusual sounds reminiscent of chimes, bells or harps[3][4][5][6] A 'third bridge instrument' can be a "prepared guitar" modified with an object — for instance, a screwdriver — placed under the strings to act as a makeshift bridge, or it can be a custom made instrument.

One of the first guitarists who began building instruments with an extra bridge was Fred Frith. Guitarist and composer Glenn Branca has created similar instruments which he calls harmonic guitars or mallet guitars. Since the 1970s, German guitarist and luthier Hans Reichel has created guitars with third-bridge-like qualities.

restored behaviour 2

Restored behaviour can be understood processualy by examining the rehearsal process: how the single behaved behaviours of ordinary living are made into the twice-behaved behaviours of art, ritual and other performative genres.
A person performing recovers his own self only by going out of himself and meeting the others (audience) by entering in a social field.
In personal terms, restored behaviour is “me behaving as I am somenone else or “me in another state of being/feeling”
Earlier rehearsals and/or performances quickly become the reference points, the building blocks of performances. Useful recollections are not of “how it was” but of how we used to it”
The workshop-rehearsal process is the basic machine for the restoration of the behaviour.
Phases:
1. Breaking the performance recistance, starting from zero level
2. Initiaton or transition: developing new or restoring old behaviour (But so called new behaviour is really the rearangement of old behaviour or the enactment of old behavior in new settings.
3. Reintegration – The restored behavior is practices till becomes the second nature.
4. Public performance

restored behaviour 1

Performance is restored behavior. Rehearsal functions to build a score, and this score is a “ritual by contract” fixed behaviour that everyone participants agrees to do. The core can pe changed because it is not a natural event. But a model of individual and collective choice. Existing as “second nature”, restored behavior is always subject to revision. This “secondness” combines negativity and subjonctivity. Restored behaviour could be “me behaving like someone else” or “me in a different state of mind/being”
Performance is restored behaviour. Performance means: never for the first time!
In all kind of performances a certain thereshold is crossed. And if it isn’t, performance fails.
On the stage something happens with the performer and he is no longer himself, he starts to restore strips of reality (of the of his reality, his perception of reality).