1. Wow. What a doozy of a first interview for this podcast, with the interviewee telling you that you did a shitty job as the interviewer.

    It tied into the theme of the podcast (which I got some awesome insights out of, btw, Mr. Hansen!).

    Structure vs. Anti-Structure

    Hansen vs. Horsley

    I hadn’t heard of the term “liminoid” before. I like it. Most people who get pseudo-intitiated in pseudo-group-rituals in the modern world, get a real taste of the liminoid … NOT the liminal. They get a taste of the same old piece of shit that they’ve always been chewing on, basically, and then proclaim “progress and evolution”.

  2. I have to agree with George, you can’t expect the listener to get anything out of this conversation. We needed more examples of liminalism.

  3. I think Hansen has a point, and it’s too easy to read the podcast as Horsley=anti-structure and Hansen=structure. Actually Horsley is awarding himself with a qualification: the liminalist. Note: not “A liminalist”, or “Looking at liminality”, “Liminal thoughts”, “Liminal Podcast” or wathever. THE Liminalist, So since the beggining our attention is drawn to the fiction that he’s embodying liminality. Read that way, actually Horsley=structure and Hansen=anti-structure, since Horsley is actively writing himself into an structure, whereas Hansen actually deletes himself of it –as Rolf points out, he tries actually to focus on details and exemples of liminality.

    Well we could co now on the “we’re one” and “we’re connected” yadda yadda, but that’s an structure too. 😉

  4. I dunno what to make with that response, i don’t understand the tone or the intention with which is said. I could have ignored it but I felt questioned by it, so i’m trying to answer in a non reacting way. So trynig to figure out how to do it I go into a slight “semi-channeling” trance here, about 60 secs, and this is what I got.

    What’s structure, anyway? It’s not the plasma from the ubermind, that isn’t, that’s for sure. This is automatic writing? Maybe, maybe not, since I’m painfully aware of these words, words, words … but senses are on my ear-loop right now, peripheric vision maybe, or maybe semi peripheric … what’s the liminal? *IS* that’s the problem i guess, and my writing goes far, far, far more richer when i consciously try to avoid IS structure, that’s something i learnt from RAW and FFS I damn every time i forget it, and fail not to apply it …

  5. thanks

    your first comment didnt quite seem to hang together, felt like an argument created out of thin air for its own sake, tho it did give rise to some thought. For example, the title The Liminalist is meant in a similar fashion to newspaper titles such as The New Republican, not as a reference to myself, per se. And even as a ref, to me, the “The” no more puts me forward as a singularity than say, Bertolucci’s The Comformist is meant to be about the only conformist in history.

    Your reading just seemed a bit arbitrary, that’s all. It pretty clear from the interview that George has a more structured idea about liminality and what he wants to talk about than I do and I think the conversation shows (at least in the more structured edited form) how both modalities are needed and work together, as much as (or more than) it shows how they are opposed.

    The question of to have structure or not to have structure may be a red herring, esp when talking about use of language, which is itself structured and gives structure, imposes it even. For me it is more a question of allowing spontaneity, which requires the precise minimum of structure for safety without restriction. And this is different for each individual.

  6. [e-prime mode ON]Fuck I didn’t wrote my channeled shit into e-prime, so my channeling higher self seems from my space-time perspective a lame writer. Should I talk about this construct –my higher chnneling self– attributing him liminal terms, or would that move the conversation to a more structured landscape? This short writing experiment extenuates me. What i can observe with my limited energy levels appears to me as a thought-proccess oriented to a more kinestetic semantic field than the one i use if i don’t force myself to use e-prime.[e-prime mode OFF]

    Fuck write this has been really exausting 😀

  7. Great, i didn’t understand The Liminalist as newspaper-styled. Maybe that undestanding has emerged from the moment in the interview in which you refer yourself as the liminal one, in which hansen seems to explode. I DEFY YOU NOW TO WRITE YOUR RESPONSE IN E-PRIME 😀

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s