At the beginning of my doctorate, the practice of the Manipulations was the departure point for considering the knowledge that is created in and through dance. In the further course of my research, however, my focus shifted from the Manipulations to the so-called research score.
The research score is a translation of the original duo practice of the Manipulations into a solo practice. In this solo version, the receiver works without a giver and explores how to re-create—all alone—the sensory experience of receiving Manipulations Number One and Number Two from an imaginary partner. In addition to re-creating the sensation of receiving the Manipulations, there is yet another additional task and modification of the original practice, which is to keep an eye on the process of thinking, and to articulate thoughts that arise in relation to a word or concept chosen beforehand. These thoughts are instantly written down, or they are spoken out loud.
What is key with regard to the research score is that the written or verbal articulation of thoughts is embedded within the practice of re-creation itself, rather than being separate from it. Instead of creating a gap between the physical practice and language, which separates the two into different action complexes, the research score interweaves into one and the same practice an exploration of the process of sensing with the expression of thoughts. By undoing the bracketing of language in the Manipulations, and by embedding a linguistic mode of reflection within the practice itself, instead of postponing it till afterwards, the research score challenges the duality of physical practice and linguistic reflection that is considered to be one of the main problems of research into performer training, as we saw in Chapter Three.
In the following, I first briefly reiterate what I take to be the most important characteristic features of the Manipulations, before elaborating in more detail on the techniques that constitute the research score.
Shifting Relations with the Manipulations
As elaborated in Chapter Three, I consider the Manipulations to be a practice for learning how to articulate bodies in order to cultivate their affectability. Based on the idea that bodies are open and constantly changing entities, the Manipulations foster an altered ecology of experience by cultivating a body that is fundamentally entangled with its environment, and which has the capacity “to establish a relationship of infinite influences”.1 By foregrounding the inter-corporeal physical relations between two more-than human bodies, rather than the inter-subjective social relationships between two individual human beings, the practice has the potential to alter the perception of a body in relation to itself and other bodies.
One of the main concerns when practicing the Manipulations is learning how to become Weather for the other body. This transformation of a body into a medium calls into question conventional notions of agency as the property of an individual body that is separate from other human and non-human bodies, and it raises issues of ownership: Who owns “the body that belongs to nobody”,2 created and co-embodied by the two partners during the Manipulations? What are the properties of this third body? How is it constituted, and what are its limits and extensions?
Training with the Manipulations is not so much about learning how to move, but rather about learning how to not move. The habitual relationship between proprioception and kinaesthesia is changed. Typically, a body’s proprioception is predominantly activated by its own kinaesthetic system—i.e. by movement—thus creating sensory feedback about this body’s relations to itself. However, in the Manipulations, the tactile-kinaesthetic articulation of the giver connects the receiver’s proprioception to a different kinaesthetic field of relations, thus manipulating the habitual perception of the receiver’s body in terms of how movement is initiated, and cultivating its capacity to experience being moved by someone—or potentially something—else. The practice thus prepares the grounds for the emergence of an altered ecology of experience in which a body’s relationality and processuality are emphasized.
A body’s capacity to become a medium—Weather—is valued more highly than the expression of individual or personal creativity. By allowing the body to be moved and manipulated by a giver, and by becoming receptive to Weather, the receiving body is given the opportunity to have a most unique experience, one which it could never have were it to move predominantly from the perception of relations within the body itself. The practice thus creates the grounds for an altered ethics of a ‘we can’, which differs from the ego-logics of the ‘I can’. The eco-logy of the ‘we can’ consists in a heightened capacity of the more-than-human body to be moved by potentially infinite influences, both in relation to itself as well to other human or non-human bodies, organisms, things, etc.
Learning to become (receptive to) Weather, it bears repeating, is an arduous and open-ended endeavour, and the training was developed in order to craft and provide appropriate tools along the way. In this sense, the Manipulations are a toolkit for learning how to articulate bodies, which consists of several intricately interwoven relational techniques of articulating a body in order to cultivate its affectability: techniques of touching, bracketing, releasing, breathing, attending, and reflecting. These techniques constitute the embodied knowledge that is created by the Manipulations.
What is at Stake with the Research Score?
The reason for reiterating what I take to be the most prominent features and aims of the Manipulations is because I want to highlight, as succinctly as possible, what is at stake with the research score. On the one hand, the research score is deeply anchored in—and indebted to—the heritage of the Manipulations. It builds on its conception of movement and body, continues its work, and strives for similar aims: to shift relations and to foreground an altered ecology of movement. On the other hand, the research score makes some significant changes to the practice in response to the particular aims and necessities of artistic research, thus enabling the Manipulations’ transformation into a medium of research (see Chapter Five). For practitioners who are more familiar with the tradition of Body Weather, the research score may appear to go against the grain of the original practice. However, I consider the research score to be a re-invention of the Manipulations that is more faithful to the aims and the philosophy of the original practice than it might at first seem.
At any rate, changing the Manipulations from a duo form into the solo practice of the research score raises a number of questions and issues. First, on a practical level and in relation to the process of re-creation: How does one physically re-create the sensation of being touched and moved by an absent body? How does one re-create the process of alteration, the becoming of a medium, of Weather? How does one single-handedly articulate ‘the body that belongs to nobody’?
Second, with the inclusion of language and verbal reflection in the practice: How does one negotiate the relations and the economy of attention between reflecting in the medium of the senses and reflecting in the medium of words – without subordinating one to the other? How does one construct the process of activating—and simultaneously tracing—different modalities of thinking without suffering a loss in the precision and specificity of their articulation? How does one re-create the shift from the inter-subjective to the inter-corporeal, as simultaneously thought and language become included in the practice and acknowledged as factors of experience? How does one prevent language from becoming the dominating factor of experience? Finally, what and how does a ‘body that belongs to nobody’ think?
Many of these questions can be addressed pragmatically on the level of the techniques that structure the Manipulations. To begin with the issue of re-creation: I explored a number of ways of re-creating the sensation of being given the Manipulations by re-creating the effects of the technique of touch. One possibility is to imagine—as concretely as possible—where precisely the giver touches the receiver, and to localize the exact contact-point where the weight passes through the skin, and where it moves the body, or (a) part(s) of the body, for example the arms, the legs, or the head. Another way of re-creating the sensation of receiving is to draw on the memory of sensations experienced during exercises in the past, and to remember—in as much detail as possible—how it felt to be moved by an actual giver, when the weight entered the body, when it was directed through the body and into the ground, stimulating intense sensations of compression, densification, stretching, expansion, pain, opening, release, etc. Another approach to re-creation is to diligently trace and reproduce the form of a received touch-manipulation; for example, the spatial trajectory of the arms lifted and pulled backwards at the beginning of Manipulation Number One. It is also an option to try out a combination of these possibilities, either by going back and forth from one approach to the other, or by layering several of them simultaneously, which considerably increases the complexity of the process of re-creation. Finally, other ways of approaching re-creation may still be discovered in the future.
The Paradox of Re-Creation
No matter how carefully the process is constructed by the practitioner, the re-creation of being touched and moved by someone else will inevitably lead to the following paradoxical situation: How can you attain sensory feedback from movement when you are supposed to not move ‘by yourself’ and from the perception of your own body? How do you release, for example, the muscles in your neck when you actually need to use muscular effort in order to re-create the sensation of the head being lifted up from the ground and moved by the hands of an imaginary giver? How do you re-create the kinaesthetic-tactile sensation of being moved by someone else while at the same time working on suspending movement ‘by yourself’, and on minimizing muscle tension?
In the case of the Manipulations the situation is clear: the work is to switch off all muscle tension and to cut all volitional movement, as well as the stand-by mode of being ready to move by yourself. In the research score, however, the imperative to bracket volitional movement needs some recalibration, due to the different situation. Re-creating the feeling of being given and of receiving the Manipulations is impossible without moving the body at least minimally by oneself. The activation of memory and imagination alone will not suffice. No matter how hard the receiver tries to imagine and memorize the past experience of being manipulated by another body, the feeling of being moved by an imaginary giver will necessarily require some—if only minimal—volitional movement3 as a means to activate the proprioceptive system and to receive sensory feedback from it.
In my experience, imagination and memory alone are not sufficient to re-create the sensation of being moved. In order to obtain any feedback from the proprioceptive system and to actually get a sensation of being moved, the receiver has to invest muscular effort. In short, re-creation is impossible without softening the strict imperative to bracket intentional self-movement. The question is: Just how much self-movement is actually necessary in order to re-create sensations that are similar to those when being actually manipulated?
As long as the laws of gravity are in place, it is unavoidable to invest muscular effort in order to move and displace a body, or parts of it. However minimal that muscular effort may be, in terms of quality and intensity the concomitant sensation will inevitably differ from the sensation of being touched and moved by an actual giver. Due to the laws of gravity, an identical reproduction of the effects of the duo form of the Manipulations through the solo form of the research score is impossible. Any attempt to accomplish a truthful replication is necessarily bound to fail.
Negotiating Failure with Precision
This paradoxical situation can be perceived by a practitioner as frustrating and like ‘hitting a wall’. How can one handle the paradoxical situation that is created by these two contradictory tasks? How can one move towards the impossible, and cope with the inevitable failure? On the other hand, what is the benchmark for ‘failing’ or ‘succeeding’ at a task in the context of artistic research, where the value of a research practice consists less in its successful execution than in its potential to generate new knowledge?
Simply because it is obviously impossible to accomplish the mission of re-creation ‘successfully’, this does not automatically imply that all attempts will fail equally. The point is to not give up on the task of re-creation, merely because there is no way to do it ‘right’. Working towards re-creation is a matter of difference and degree. Eventually, some attempts to re-create the sensation of receiving will be more articulate and will create more differences than other attempts.
If the action of knowing consists in articulating a body in ways that proliferate rather than minimize differences, as we saw in Chapter Three, then the challenge of ‘re-creation’ consists in always failing with utmost precision. Each time the research score is practiced, failure produces difference, which makes it a practice that thrives on techniques of negotiating failure, and not a practice to be mastered. It is crucial to articulate the exact terms of failure in as much detail as possible, and to fail with ever more nuances and differently each time.
Negotiating Failure and Meta-Reflection
The technique of negotiating failure in the research score is similar to the technique of reflecting in and through the practice of the Manipulations, except for the difference that in the latter case negotiation takes place in relation to a real giver, whereas in the research score it happens in relation to the absent body of an imagined giver. In both cases, the negotiation of muscular tension and effort happens in and through a perceptual mode of reflection-in-action, i.e. in the medium of the senses, in particular the sense of touch and the kinaesthetic-proprioceptive system.
What makes the situation for the practitioner of the research score far more complicated, however, is that the activation of memory, imagination, and minimal muscular effort, as well as the tracing of their sensory effects, comprises an extremely demanding set of tasks that requires a considerable amount of effort on the level of attention. The intensity and complexity of the different tasks pursued in the research score require high-speed thinking-at-the-same-time, which can easily lead to a feeling of overload. This feeling can quickly lead to a collapse of multi-modal reflexive attention – the receiver’s focus becomes boiled down to one particular strand of activity, or to one particular mode or object of attention. In the vocabulary of Body Weather, this breakdown of multi-modal attention is referred to as ‘falling into tunnel-perception’.
This is when meta-reflection comes in. Meta-reflection is reflection on reflection-in-action. It is a technique to prevent the receiver from falling into tunnel-perception and from becoming controlled by their ‘autopilot’. Meta-reflection is a macro-perspective on the practice from within the practice. Decisions are made at high speed concerning the ‘cutting’ and (re-)directing of attention, the breaking of ‘flow’, the negotiation of effort and tension, etc. Meta-reflection asks: What is the overall situation and what is needed in order to (re-)activate the practice? This constant meta-reflective interrogation and observation of the practice from a macro-perspective is crucial both in the Manipulations and in the research score.4
Imaginary Breathing Through in the Research Score
In the process of re-creating the sensation of receiving, the negotiation of muscular effort and the distribution of attention are crucially supported by the technique of Imaginary Breathing Through. As outlined in Chapter Two, Imaginary Breathing Through is a solo version of the duo hands-on practice of Breathing Through. In the Manipulations, Breathing Through provides the receiver with a technique to mentally and physically reach toward the place of the touch, to attune to the giver, to make the skin permeable, to release tension, and to (re-)direct the attention.
I want to emphasize, again, the significant role of Breathing Through in terms of shifting relations between the giver and the receiver of the Manipulations, from inter-subjective to inter-corporeal. This shift enables the creation of an altered network of corporeal relations between the two bodies, which is crucial for the capacity to become articulated by the other body, by infinite influences and flows of intensities – by Weather. This capacity to kick-start the process of alteration makes Breathing Through a key technique for the process of receiving in the Manipulations.
In the research score, likewise, Imaginary Breathing Through plays a prominent role in re-creating the sensation of receiving the Manipulations, and the perception of being moved by Weather. The practice aims to restore relations with the (imaginary) giver, and, thus, the ecology of ‘we can’ that is key for the Manipulations. This is to say that the act of re-creation encompasses far more than merely reproducing a locally-confined sensation of being touched and moved by an imaginary partner. Re-creation is about reliving as comprehensively as possible the complex ecology and network of relations of a body that is being weathered. Aided by the technique of Imaginary Breathing Through, the research score strives for no less than the re-creation of a constantly changing and unbounded body of infinite influences—‘the body that belongs to nobody’—with the exception that this end is worked towards using the surrogate body of an imaginary partner instead of an actual one.5
It is therefore, in a way, misleading to call the research score a ‘solo’ practice. It seems to presuppose the body as a separate entity that enters into relations with its environs and with other bodies. But it is precisely this conception of ‘the body’ as a separate unit and pre-existing entity that is fundamentally contested by Body Weather. Bodies are conceived as multiplicities and in a state of constant becoming through embodying infinite relations. Bodies are always already more than one. It is therefore more appropriate to say that in the research score, Body re-creates Weather.6
Undoing the Bracketing of Language
As demonstrated in Chapter Two, the bracketing of verbal communication between giver and receiver is a key technique of the Manipulations (‘No talking!’). To briefly reiterate, the idea behind the suspension of verbal communication is that it enables the two partners to refine their non-verbal tools of exchange by foregrounding alternative modalities of relating such as touch, breath, kinaesthesia, and proprioception.
While the suspension of speech during the Manipulations is reasonable from a pedagogical perspective, as a means of supporting the transmission and the deepening of the practice, I see the risk that in the long run, the technique of bracketing language—and of bracketing thinking in the medium of words—could sediment as a habit, and that the separation of practice and language could become embodied as tacit knowledge.
From the perspective of a Body Weather practitioner, this separation may be justifiable, and even desired, as a means of shifting relations between bodies from inter-subjective to inter-corporeal, and in order to create an altered ecology of experience. However, combined with an implicit understanding of language as framing and fixing experience, the ongoing exclusion of language in the Manipulations is problematic, because it fosters a dualistic division between verbal language and physical practice.
The bracketing of language in the Manipulations is thus exemplary of the duality of physical practice and linguistic reflection, something that is considered a key challenge for research into performer training.7 It is important in this respect, however, to highlight that this duality is not an ontological given, but the result of a pedagogical method that deliberately separates physical practice and linguistic reflection into two different complexes of action: first we silently do the practice; afterwards we verbally reflect on and talk about it. The problem of this separation is that while it may be intended to be an emancipatory strategy to undo linguistic frames, it subjects bodies’ experiences to a new form of regulation by imposing a division between language and practice.8
Towards a Medium of Artistic Research
By undoing the bracketing of language, the research score breaks with the logics of separation. Considering language as just one more aspect of Weather, and as equivalent to other non-verbal modalities of expressing a body’s thinking, the research score embeds linguistic reflection in the ecology of experience that is created by the process of re-creation. It connects kinaesthetic-tactile and proprioceptive modes of thinking in and through the experience of movement with conceptually reflecting about the experience of movement. By including verbal articulation in the flow of practice, the research score creates an ecology of (interdisciplinary) practices that foregrounds the relations between bodily discourse and verbal discourse, thus challenging the ontological assumptions—and doing away with the methodological obstacles—that separate language and practice into categorically different domains and complexes of actions.
Laermanns suggests that “the unity of the difference between movement and non-movement […] defines the medium of dance”.9 Following this, I propose that it is the unity of the difference between movement and language that defines the medium of the research score.10 The research score embodies principles and values that have been advanced by the proponents of reflexive dance: the conjunction of movement and discourse, the rapprochement between theory and practice, and the attitude of research and reflexivity. Nevertheless, different from a conceptual(-ist) approach, it neither starts from an idea, nor is its main interest to experiment with the absence of movement. The aim of the research score is not to suspend movement in order to give more space to conceptual modes of knowing, or to bring concepts into the studio as a means of reflecting about the practice, but to build on the heritage of the Manipulations and to create a specific ecology of practices in order to explore the potential of the Manipulations as a medium of artistic research.
 On a strictly relational account, ‘volitional’ or ‘wilful’ movement is actually impossible. The feeling of volitional movement is the effect of consciousness that habitually makes us perceive movement as volitional: “Volitional movement understood as movement belonging to the subject and fully directed by the subject is […] impossible. Such an account of volition […] can only be narrated after the fact” (Manning 2016, 19). According to Manning, the act of volition or of willing movement does not precede movement, but is in the movement: “Volition is not where we usually assume it is: it is not ahead of experience, but in experience, in the ecology of practices” (Manning 2016, 149). Following this, instead of speaking of ‘volitional movement’ in the research score, it seems more appropriate to speak of activating the perception of volitional movement as a means of re-creating the sensation of being moved. The paradox of re-creation, then, consists in the deliberate re-activation of a perception of movement that the research score actually aims to leave behind. Volition is active in the experience of re-creation, and in the ecology of practices that constitute the research score.
 Paula Kramer, a close colleague and one of my collaborators in the second artistic part made, the following comment with regard to this way of working: “’One of my notes was: ‘Was ‘ne krasse Praxis!’ [What a crazy practice!] And that was related to this really highly mental focus, that we talked a lot about in Berlin: This constant cutting, not-allowing of entering any deep elongated feeling states, because that somehow equals getting lost and blurred, the constant hacking, cutting and re-alerting the mind, which is super-interesting because sometimes I can have the sense that I can feel the friction between body and mind, both are somehow quivering and activated, and I’m not—as I would maybe in other somatic practices—dive into this luscious world of sensing-feeling expansiveness and endlessness and feeling feeling feeling. So I am really intrigued by this cutting. It took me a while to appreciate it, I think, or to understand it as something really interesting and positive, but I think it is something that is really specific and crucial. So there is all this and then there is also this sense of close proximity and deep care and intimacy and tenderness that is also in it. So I am just saying all kinds of things that I have in my now small experience of the Manipulations and the research score” (Research Diary, 30 June 2016).
 The artist-researcher Alys Longley sent me the following reflection on my research presentation at a conference in Reykjavík in 2015: “I am moved and impressed thinking of the implications and determination of practicing a duet practice solo – and thinking on the implications of Joa imagining the trace of his duet partner through his flesh, so that patterns are activated and muscles respond, a sense of lifting and falling, of pressing and releasing, with imagined hands tracing real muscles. Thinking of the virtual partner – an assimilation of all the partners Joa has ever had, condensed in his imagination and reliving in the studio. I somehow sense a profound philosophical resonance in this. Questions of absence and presence, of the travel of bodies. Of re-creating sensation through a disciplined, focussed imagining. A transsubjective state” (Longley 2015).
 In this specific situation, Weather refers to the physical experience that was originally constituted by the practice of the Manipulations. Re-creating Weather in and through the research score, then, means for example re-enacting the (memory of the) sensation of touch-movement by the giver, of the displacement and extension of certain body parts, of weight entering the body, of the sensation of compression and possibly the pain that goes along with it, etc. In other situations, Weather could include place and/or landscape, urban architecture, the social and cultural situation in which a body takes shape, or even the conditions that are shaped by the weather in its literal sense: temperature, precipitation, wind, etc. As I have argued, in training with the Manipulations, certain aspects of Weather are deliberately edited out, such as language. The research score aims to re-edit Weather by including language.
 To avoid possible misunderstandings, I do not claim that Body Weather is fundamentally opposed to any use of language during training practice. The bracketing of language in the Manipulations is clearly the most extreme case. Furthermore, it needs to be mentioned that both Frank van de Ven and Katerina Bakatsaki from Body Weather Amsterdam have experimented extensively, each in their own way, with the relationship between speech and movement: Van de Ven, a.o., in the performance project ‘Thought/Action’ (1999-2012), Bakatsaki, a.o., in the performance project ‘Something Here That Is Not There’ (2005-2009).
Writing with the Research Score11
Suspending the habitual mode of thinking
Changing the place of thinking
Relocating the place of observation
Is there a difference between sensing and observing sensing?
Is there a difference between thinking and observing thinking?
In the body
It seems that if I am able to observe sensations I am also more able to observe my own thinking
It seems like
There is something like a third place
Maybe also one is embedded in the other
The process of sensing is embedded in the process of thinking or reflecting
And the process of thinking embedded in sensing
Sensing thoughts while thinking sensation12
Giving equal significance to thoughts and sensations
Giving time to what usually is not perceived
Giving time to the continuum of sensing through the body not just the surface
Not just the skin
But the deep tissues as well, muscles
Re-aligning body, re-aligning thinking
Connecting sensing and thinking through touch
Thinking from the deeper muscles, deeper tissues, the fasciae, organs, bones
Getting closer to the imperceptible, insensible.
Is the third space rather a specific mode of being in time, a specific temporality?13
Changing the material texture of thinking
Thinking through the neck
In touch with another reality than the one that is given
Method of undoing subjectivity14
You become what you practice
By practicing becoming15
It seems that whenever I start with the work
The body already recognizes and goes into a mode of deep relaxation
Muscles of the legs softening
Memory and imagination activate the sensation of receiving
The legs and the arms know better how to relax than the torso
Learning the form of the Manipulations means to become able to do the form without being verbally instructed
Learning the sequence by heart by translating the explicit into the implicit16
Release in the chest
Not everything can be articulated
Not everything can become explicit
Being touched by someone else allows for a knowledge of the body that Otherwise would not be possible
That one might not be able to get on one’s own17
Either too much or too little
Negotiating the excluded middle
Reflecting in the doing and with the doing
To practice thinking by thinking with the practice
Training thinking ‘with’18
Creating the physical space for the permeability of thinking
To think also through your back
To expand the network
Training thinking and thinking training19
Training another mode of perceiving
Another mode of thinking
Changing the condition of the body
Is changing the state of mind20
The research score is not damaging the ecology of practice
In the process of translating practice into language
It is changing the ecology without destroying it
An interdisciplinary micro-practice
A technique of partnering verbal and non-verbal practices articulating the body
Creating an ecology that affords the co-existence and co-articulation of linguistic and non-linguistic modes of expression
Trying to articulate the difference between thought that is expressed in a language that grammatically repeats the notion of a subject
And a language beyond the bounded subject
How to express language in a way that does not re-invoke a subject of research?
Is Breathing Through creating the possibility for a thinking-through-and-beyond?
Composing language with re-creation21
Non-volitional reflection intentionally reflecting
A mode of reflection that does not want to achieve something
But that is open for whatever comes
A mode of reflection that allows for ideas
To come forth from some other place than the rational
A mode of reflection that makes sense differently
In relation to the ground, sound, light, the spine, mouth, breathe
And all the other things that are here and that are not here22
The research score as a re-activation of modes of thought in the Manipulations
Re-creation is not just re-creation of the sensation of the movement or touch-manipulation
But of modes of reflection23
Touch as a mode of reflection
As a mode of thinking through the body
Thinking through the body of an other
Reflecting on the experience of the touch
Reflecting not on ‘what does this mean?’
But on ‘what does it do?’
‘How does it work?’
‘What does it need?’
‘What does the other need?’24
How could you forget that you need a body to create knowledge?
Knowing how to release thinking
How to sense thinking
Wiggle the brain and shake the thoughts25
Going through the skin
Articulating experience not as a definition
But as a proposition
Articulating with breathing through
Noticing pathways of breath and of passage
And going out
Breaths are touching26
Imagining to be articulated manipulated by J.
Breathing out through all pores of my skin simultaneously
Bringing into articulation sensations and altering the perception of the body
Altering habitual modes of self-articulation
Articulation as a practice of reading and writing the body
Sensing is a writing practice
Perception is a reading practice
about the relationship between sensing and perceiving
Between reading and writing27
In order to think
With a trans-subjective state of mind
Not getting into expressing
What or how the self thinks
Thinking with a body
That is in a mode of reassembling its parts
Dis-membering and re-membering28
Updating the here and now
Images of past giving
What’s different today?
Is it possible to sense a qualitative difference?
Imagination feeding into memory
They never coincide
The weather is different
Never exactly the same twice
Irreplaceable from the point of view of true and original experience
Repeatability as variation
There is difference in repetition
A sort of delimiting the horizons of experience29
My imaginary partner
Together we re-create this body
Together with multiple other bodies
We don’t know, yet, what this technique can do
But we know that it works30
Sedimentation of space in the body
Sedimentation of body in the space
The hissing sound signals arrival on the floor
A change of mode
The activation of peripheral proprioception
Aligning bodies and minds
Agency as a temporal displacement of will
Allowing technique to do its work
Not providing solutions
But a way of creating a field of study
Providing a repeatable set of actions
To compare and differentiate
A way of organizing organism
Its relations to itself and to other organisms
Present or not present
Still coming to be31
Where is the knowledge?
Has the technique become exhausted?
Has it exhausted itself?
Has it become completely outdone?32
Activating different modes of reflection
By attending through/to
Different modes of experience
By attending to multiple layers of experience simultaneously
Not only to what there is
But also to what has been
To what is yet to come
Memory and Imagination
Adding to what makes itself felt as present
The given Weather
If reflection instantiates a separation
Then attention is creating a stretch
A reaching towards
Creating not a separation
But a relation
Connecting different modes of reflection
In the medium of the senses
With reflection in the medium of words
In relation not only to the body
But also to other non-linguistic things
Are other things doing reflection with me?33
Allowing thoughts to emerge
By allowing for silence
For stillness in the movement of thoughts
A stillness that is alert and attentive
Ready to change direction at any moment
Attending also to what does not happen
What might come to the fore unexpectedly
A visual image from the past
An idea that has been waiting around the corner
An idea that I would not have been able to have otherwise
An idea that is born from a relation I have not had before
Born from a different temporality
From a different rhythm
A different kind of effort
Breathing through space
Spacing through breath
If one is many
Then the minimum unit is more than two
Sometimes touch is following breath with breath leading
Sometimes touch directs breath
Leads breath to find the opening created by touch
Working hand in hand
The research score is a partnering practice
Partnering imagination and memory
Breath and Attention
Finding the release
Thinking with the skin as a relational organ
Breathing through the brain
Solidity of the skull
Versus the permeability of the soles of the feet
Sometimes it doesn’t need extra weight by another body
One’s own weight is just enough
The stranglehold of representational language
The stranglehold of language representing experience
How to open that up?
How to get out?36
Slightly different path
Pushing thought into another direction
Letting it orbit around body
It enters your head
From the back
Through the neck
Through the ribs and through your hands
Into the touch
It comes not with will
But with clarity and determination
To the point
Making itself felt
But without force
Carried by the weight
And sweetened by the honey of your touch
Delicately tasting the sole of the foot
Opening the honey-trap
Undoubtedly missing you37
Sensations that create a perception of surrender
Surrendering to someone or something else
Coming in and passing through
Creating space for imagination to activate relations and intensities
Real time entering
Pre-creation for future enterings
An opening to the past
Enabling an opening to the future
Is it an opening
Or is it an activation of a dormant potential?
Is the relation already there
Or is it generated?
Is it significant to make a distinction between that which is activated
And that which is created?38
Created by the rhythm of breathing
In collusion with the sequence
Expectations of how it feels
Action and perception patterns
Established modes of perception
Orienting the sensations of imaginary receiving
Can the practice of the research score undo
Of sensing and perceiving in the practice of the Manipulations?
Of perceptual thinking?
Can it expand
The register of thinking?
Can it change
The practice of the Manipulations?39
Has ‘translation’ become exhausted?
Has the concept become tacit?
Has it become unproductive?
Repetitive without difference?
Or can it still produce difference?
Can that difference be articulated?
Does it need to be articulated verbally?
Is it not enough to articulate it perceptually?
Words activating the practice
Words as a means to re-access past experience
Touching the concept with my mind
Putting all the effort in the listening
Searching for the right tonus
Allowing thoughts to come to expression
Curious about the futurity of the research score
Looking forward to leave behind this still kind of lonely practice41
Putting together and apart
Separating and joining
Isolating and connecting
At the edge of the articulatable
Staying long enough with prearticulation
For the not-yet-thought to emerge
With and through the floor
Body as passage
Thought becoming felt
Coming to expression with touch
Is it a method to capture thought
Or a technique to release thinking?
Minimizing the effort of thought’s extraction
Minimizing the effort to com-pre-hend
How are the notions of the untouchable
And the ineffable
Related to each other?42
To think a body from its limits
To take thought into the touch
Creating a different set of relations
To think with you
Articulating the body differently
Your thinking entering
Our thinking coming together
Thought that belongs to no body
Reaching into the floor
Floor knows how to support
Knows how to take weight
Embedded in an ecology
Body experiencing floor
Floor experiencing body
Floor in my skin
Body activating floor
Activating floor in my head
Floor in my chest
Thinking through a floored body
Body in the floor
And floor in the body
Affected by deep touch
Knowledge in the technique of creating that ecology
Distribution of sense
Sensing and sensed
Stillness and moving
Deeply touched by the floor
Breathing through the touch
Proper sense of touch touching its metaphorical sense
Is it possible to touch on those layers
Of deeply sedimented knowledge?
What do the ribs have to say?
The repetition of bodily knowledge
Conscious and unconscious reflectivity
A repetition of the same?
A repetition of possibilities instead of potential?
Articulating the space between the ribs and the floor
Articulating space around
Trusting the practice to do its work
Staying in prearticulation is not the worst that can happen
Is the existing ecology sufficient?
Is it ever sufficient?
To open up the practice to its potential?
Isn’t there always
A necessity to generate
To produce something new?
What if the new is non-conscious?
That would be not-knowing what one knows43
Allowing it to be part of the game
Relaxing the tongue
Tickling out words
Pleasing them a little
Multiple places of articulation
Reading as writing
Changing corporeal relations
The ecology of speech
Including that pain in the right lower back44
In the mess of thoughts
Listening for something to come to the fore
Articulated by the vocal chords
Without becoming forced
Or at least not only descriptive
Sedimented words that are touched upon
Depth versus surface
Where nothing ever returns
Diffracted and inflected
On its way to
But not absent
A way of communicating
Or in touch with the more-than-human
Without projecting one’s own needs
To be for the other
A kind of knowing that emerges between two bodies
Always going to the edge of not-knowing
Moving through together
Allowing experience to speak
Maybe not for itself
But in its own terms
Not outside of language
But in a language that
Is more adequate to
The heart of the experience46
An alphabet of touch
Each touch a letter
Attention as the ink
Not written on the body
But a kind of writing with the body
Not the body speaking for itself
But with many others
Touch is not inscribing onto the body
The body is not a surface of inscription
Not a blank sheet of paper
The body is with language
Multiple streams of signs47
Writing with the other
Breathing word by word
Creating space for words to pass through
For thoughts to be affected48
Spelling out experience differently each time
Shifting attention to another page
Repetition and singularity
Singularity through repetition
Maintaining a close relationship with the phrasing of receiving
Insisting on difference
Attention as a means to not fall into automatisms
Maintaining alive the conversation with imagination
Refreshing the body’s experience of the work today
The desire to give myself to the other
To let the other in
To re-experience 1000 plateaus of touch
Worlds in a word50
Articulating the body
For creating words51
Giving weight to words
Relating words to place
Taking words to the limits52
Not everything can be felt and sensed
And not everything can be spoken out and said
There are limits to what can be said
Same as there are limits to what can be felt and sensed53
 All of the following writing was created on the basis of my solo practice of the research score from 2015 to 2019.
 Excerpt from research score with ‘place’ (edited), 12 February 2015.
 Excerpt from research score with ‘third space’ (edited), 12 March 2015.
 Excerpt from research score with ‘method’ (edited), 11 May 2015
 Excerpt from research score with ‘tacit knowledge’ (edited), 24 May 2015.
 Excerpt from research score with ‘tacit knowledge’ (edited), 23 June 2015.
 Excerpt from research score with ‘tacit knowledge’ (edited), 26 June 2015.
 Excerpt from research score with ‘thinking’ (edited), 10 July 2015.
 Excerpt from research score without reference (edited), 22 July 2015.
 Excerpt from research score with ‘training’ (edited), 14 July 2015.
 Excerpt from research score without reference (edited), 13 March 2018.
 Excerpt from research score with ‘embodied reflection’ (edited), 13 October 2015.
 Excerpt from research score without reference (edited), 2 November 2018.
 Excerpt from research score with Zahavi’s (2015) ‘Phenomenology of Reflection’ (edited), 14 October 2015.
 Excerpt from research with Johnson’s (2010) ‘Embodied Knowing Through Art’ (edited), 15 October 2015.
 Excerpt from research score with ‘breathing’ (edited), 24 February 2016.
 Excerpt from research score with ‘articulation’ (edited), 9 March 2016.
 Excerpt from research score without reference (edited), 15 November 2016.
 Excerpt from research score with ‘memory’ (edited), 18 June 2018.
 Excerpt from research score with ‘technique’ (edited), 2 October 2018.
 Excerpt from research score with ‘technique’ (edited), 4 October 2018.
 Excerpt from research score with ‘technique’ (edited), 8 October 2018.
 Excerpt from research score with ‘reflection’ (edited), 16 October 2018.
 Excerpt from research score with ‘reflection’ (edited), 17 October 2018.
 Excerpt from research score without reference (edited), 24 October 2018.
 Excerpt from research score without reference (edited), 6 November 2018.
 Excerpt from research score with ‘research score’ (edited), 12 February 2019.
 Excerpt from research score with ‘research score’ (edited), 12 November 2018.
 Excerpt from research score with ‘undoing’ (edited), 27 November 2016.
 Excerpt from research score with ‘translation’ (edited), 11 December 2018.
 Excerpt from research score with ‘research score’ (edited), 23 January 2019.
 Excerpt from research score with ‘articulation’ (edited), 13 February 2019.
 Excerpt from research score with ‘bodily knowledge’ (edited), 15 & 18 February 2015, as well as with ‘reflection’ (edited), 20 February 2019.
 Excerpt from research score with ‘language’ (edited), 28 July 2018.
 Excerpt from research score with ‘language’ (edited), 21 June 2018.
 Excerpt from research score with ‘language’ (edited), 27 June 2018.
 Excerpt from research score with ‘language’ (edited), 29 June 2018.
 Excerpt from research score with ‘language’ (edited), 2 July 2018.
 Excerpt from research score with ‘language’ (edited), 13 July 2018.
 Excerpt from research score with ‘language’ (edited), 17 July 2018.
 Excerpt from research score with ‘language’ (edited), 20 August 2018.
 Excerpt from research score with ‘language’ (edited), 29 June 2018.
 Excerpt from research score with ‘language’ (edited), 14 July 2018.