Email to JA, AMM, BA

Hello my internet co-thinkers,

there is so much to say about this talk. One question, which has risen in me during the talk, but I wasn’t sure if I can ask it, as it certainly would have come across a bit rude:

But maybe I don’t start with the question, maybe I start with an observation (of myself)…

All what Ingold said (1) made perfect sense to me. Talking about identifying (feeling) as the most promising path to create knowledge by doing, is exactly the way I draw and paint (and I develop most of my thoughts). When I work with Korsakow, I work like that, I start anywhere and look where it takes me (6). In short, I could feel what Ingold said. I took that for – I can understand what he said. And I wondered how much of the audience could understand that that way, too – by feeling it?

From the questions that came from the audience I assumed, that most don’t understand what Ingold said in the feeling-way. Their questions suggested that most understood, but differently. And they asked questions, I did not understand (3) but Ingold clearly did, he was not surprised by them and was happy to answer.

So clearly there is an academic understanding going on, that is not the same understanding that I have, nevertheless we understand the same thing. What we understand not contradicting either, we understand the same thing, like two sides of the same coin – like very different aspects of the same thing.

Most artists (5), might have difficulties to even see what Ingold says, because for them it is, as it is put in words, just words. 
This Ingold way of creating knowledge is, in my opinion, clearly the way to go forward, to gain the knowledge we need, to solve the hypercomplex problems we are facing (and to maybe to get closer to solving the problem of suffering). There are things that I think I (the artist in me) might understand, that Ingold does not understand himself (and I am sure he would agree) about the things Ingold said. We need to combine those.

This is why practice led research is so important. 

Someone else that talks about the same thing as Ingold in completely different words and in some sense more precise (as he builds on cybernetics, which has ties to math and programming) is Ranulph Glanville: 
youtube.com/watch?v=tTN_9mJIWNw
(more info here:http://openresearch.ocadu.ca/id/eprint/2053/ )

Anyway, it is just a thought, Florian

(1) (With „all” I mean all I was able to understand, which was maybe 70%) (2)
(2) (and after digging deep into an other talk of Ingold I think I am able to understand close to 100% if I very carefully listen to it many times and slowly with pen and paper.
(3) I would have to listen to those question multiple times, to understand.
(5) With most I mean 100% of the artists I know (most of my friends are artists), not the one Judith knows, as she looks at an other (I guess relatively small part) of the spectrum, the artists that show up in academic circles (like me).
( 6) in fact, Korsakow itself came into being like that.

PS: I was very happy that my question was picked and Ingold answered what made him multi-perspectival: he answered by talking a lot about his parents and his upbringing – (genes and culture).