035 ON AUTO-BIO-GRAPHICAL + associated complications
with due pleasure
my trusted, regular first reader of urbophilia drafts (whom I miss today) has suggested that this set of short notes should be a stand-alone piece, also asking would my emphasis on subjectivity be seen as a bias . . . as that would definitely be wrong, let me be clear: overemphasising either the “subjective” or “objective” in observing or thinking (nothing less than) the World are equally wrong; while both are necessary, neither is sufficient; to me, the path towards better (spatial) thinking and action arises from Lefebvrian three-dimensional dialectics (of space), as it enables thinking the complexities that match those of the phenomena explored; I love utopianism of that idea, its courage and capability to aim towards a better non-finito, even an (un)realism of the Borges’ map of the Empire (that beautiful critique of uncritical techno- optimism and celebrations of the non-human ruling the world today)
_ _ _ from the very beginning of urbophilia@ Substack we were touching upon the self, the one behind ideas, from general positioning in 002 ON sensibility, via 003 ON First Person Singular to more . . . perhaps most explicitly in 008 ON Subjectivity, and how to include it in urban research and practice, referring to and building upon earlier works > > >
NOW . . . let’s take off again . . . my writing is deliberately repetitive; here I do need to repeat and to add to that theme, in order to point out how the inclusion of subjectivity is not relativisation or reductionism but, to the contrary, an act of radical realism, a deliberate involvement of the complexities which tend to be pushed aside, for the sake of (research) “rigour”
THUS . . . here is a (for urbophilia) brief post ON AUTO–BIO–GRAPHICAL, to be read (with some complications, and due pleasure), to be read in continuity with the previous, 034 elaboration on intertextuality, where one autobiographical episode from my life (a dense series of travels) took over, becoming a driving force of research ways and insights
_ _ _ by definition, autobiographies (auto + bio + grare = self + life + account) are subjective; every subjectivity is autobiographical, as (I dare repeat) everything that we do is; subjectivity has to be autobiographical . . . why do I favour certain kind of books, authors, ideas, values over other kinds of books, authors, ideas and values? . . . that is not some haphazard act, but an naturalised act(ion) based on my own foundations, on my formation, on my life lived in particular places, thus an action grounded in those places and times, specific socio-cultural situations which were built into me, which have built me (in a way similar to the one in which ancestral DNA contributes to our overall setup) –the situations which I can also (try to) design and build
_ _ _ therefore, autobiographical is always individual and autobiographical is always collective; my formational influences range from the mentioned, modest avlija of my early childhood (in Hatovska street No. 9, later Hatovska 13), from a house in which I was born, where I started growing up, and to which I kept on returning for as long as it existed . . . all the way to the fragments of various desired or accidental faraways, before an utterly unimaginable YaNeSen, or Ōkurayama, Midorigaoka . . . Lat Phrao . . . Uluru . . . and other, and more . . . perhaps
_ _ _ that increases the complexity of being, making introspections necessary . . . in-sights, as sights into one’s own life, including (what we name) work, of course . . . (in)sights, (in)sites, in (the) sites of life, lived . . . that is why I insist on recognition of subjectivity (even) in scientific research (as within the mentioned flagship Mn’M project) . . . it is necessary to accept that (even) in “exact” sciences avoiding subjectivity is impossible, not (necessarily) because such recognition adds quality, but because subjectivity simply is, it is an intrinsic part of everything and anything that we (could ever) conceive and do . . . that recognition influences my selection themes to share with you at urbophilia@Substack and, more importantly, what emerges during the production of these posts . . . such moments (of production and communication with a small, select group of subscribers, the majority of whom I know, or know of) unleashes the unforeseen, previously unthought thoughts (in me) . . . that is why urbophilia exists
_ _ _ the importance of (self)awareness, of an awareness of own insufficiency in dealing with the heavy themes such as totality, complexity . . . (along with keen awareness that knowing such themes is impossible) . . . that is all about efforts to get there (fully aware of the futility of such efforts) . . . our emphasis is precisely on aiming at the unreachable, seeking (and sometimes, indeed, finding) satisfaction in only approaching it, only seeing it differently, from diverse angles, having the view from a new vantage point . . . precisely as in those disorienting drifts which I have started to elaborate in post 034 . . . and – living it, living the totality, the complexity, living fully – within all intrinsic limitations of human being in the world (as encapsulated in dasein, or otherwise)
_ _ _ what interests me is not to write in order to say, but to write in order to think, to think in different ways, sometimes putting the text before thought (if possible) . . . a reminder: here by “writing” I mean sharing, scribbling, doodling, communicating – opening ideas to cross-fertilisation
_ _ _ starting a text (let’s call all that “a text”) with a theme, with an idea, with an intention to communicate and then, while writing, finding a moment to let the text take over, to let my text lead me . . . a moment of the take-off, of flight . . . in this work, (to me) the most satisfying are the moments when the text, in its imperfect form, surprises me, when the process of (thinking as) writing (as sketching) takes me beyond my opening, apriori decision and expectations . . . that creates a possibility of non finito, a certain stage which might help (enable me to) see what isn’t there (not yet, or what I would not, or could not “finish” and see, even if that was possible) . . . ideas (can) live lives of their own, instead of being navigated, ideas (can) navigate us, us as ideas, as (embodied, living) ideas
_ _ _ to share introspections takes time . . . sharing demands trust . . . (in the case which I cherish most, ripening up took two decades) . . . externalising something inherently inner (might be possible only after redefining what the “inner” means) . . . to share the un-shareable is a contradiction in terms (only); both “sharing” and “un-shareable” are our constructs
_ _ _ and again – by “text” here I mean text(ures), all sorts of traces of thought, regardless the medium of expression . . .
_ _ _ what interests me is the birth of an idea, a moment of change, the view or the pivot not lived before; that promises innovation, originality, discovery – which thinking in general, and research in particular are about
CUT !
P.S. (following notes I, II, and III within 034) here is, as scribbled down the other day – IV: saying “I” . . . as if I (can) know what I am talking about, as if you (can) know what I am I talking about . . .
P.S. 2 a small urbophilia gift, sharing with you an encounter with (more than) a piece of art
Antonín Dvořák’s Stabat Mater (HNK Split 17.4.2025.) . . . the miracle of music . . . its power, its ephemerality . . .
it immediately becomes referential, personal . . . the flashbacks of Barbican, years ago . . . my encounter with melismatic exercises in public, in front of the Music School . . . (even older, even more personal, Risto and his-stories)
a mystery (to me) . . . the mind of a composer . . . creation of complexity, harmony, deeply human, a deeply natural yet artificial product with direct, invisible, intangible yet real, profound access to our emotions . . . (as in the composition of space, as the framework for experiences to come)