Published in  
May 12, 2015

To know is to be con-fused

An ‘old’ model of knowing presented knowledge as something ‘out there’ – something we had to strive for, an ideation that adhered to an ontologically blank world awaiting representation – instead of a direct material engagement with a complex web of practices.

Knowledge was accessed from a distance that had to be traversed with strict method and great rectitude (which is the reason why university fields of study are still called ‘disciplines’). Hence, one could seclude oneself in a cave, in a laboratory, or in a classroom, and then emerge with claims to knowledge. In small doses and in unspectacular fashion, it seems this vision is changing, and giving way to an understanding of the world as relationship, as interference, as entanglement. Knowledge is not something gained after reflexivity. Lacking pre-existent independence or ‘thingness’ means that the world is constantly being reiterated, and that we are always hyphenated, always ‘fused’ with new imaginaries, impossible interpretations, and preposterous enactments. In other words, to be entangled is to be con-fused.

No items found.

We are not merely tied in a knot from which we seek emancipation; we are the knot. There are no safe spots, foundations or hydraulically sealed narratives, just openings, counterarguments, silences, gaps, generalizations, practices that bracket out the significance of other practices, and blindspots. Knowledge is never not broken. Knowledge is the practice of shared con-fusion.