Sunday, January 22

Response - Kwame

Just thought I'd take a moment to share some considerations regarding "truth."

To my understanding -- and, to judge from what I've been reading, you seem to recognize this in some manner as well -- truth is an absolute.  It exists as an aspect of everything we do, see or even imagine.  It's all true.  People spending themselves in efforts to determine whether or not a thing is true are in denial.  The real pursuit, if one wants to talk about truth, is to learn how to describe a thing truly.  The relevant standard is how well the description corresponds with the experience being described.

This approach to truth suggests that some descriptions can be more true, and some others less, depending on such things as how much information about the experience is conveyed (and how much is left out), how significant (or insignificant) the aspects are that are exposed by the description, how clearly the description is presented to its audience.  Yet to offer any statement as a sort of map to the experience it describes is to admit to some correspondence, however nebulous and vague.

To say that a description is "false" denotes only that it isn't recognized to correspond with the experience that is being described.  If it were a map, it would not aid in navigating the territory it refers to.  This could occur for one of two reasons (or both) -- either the map does not encode useful information about the territory or the language of the code is obscure (i.e., the map is unreadable).  Still, there is some information encoded (useless though it may be), and convoluted, inexact or otherwise unclear language can be deciphered; it just takes some extra work.

The point here is that we cannot avoid being truthful in our expositions, with the very useful corollary that, as a performer, I needn't concern myself with whether or not I'm presenting myself truthfully or honestly (taking "honestly" to mean "conscientiously truthful" or something to that effect).  I am free to focus on understanding exactly what truth I mean to convey and how best to convey it.

I feel like I've taken a long time and a lot of words to say hardly anything at all.  What I most want to convey is the feeling that the ubiquity of truth renders any search for it, not completely meaningless, but at least a bit absurd.  Rather than searching for what's true, we could simply understand that we embody the object of that search.

Lail, I really wanna see your show.  Make sure you send me a copy.  I will gladly pay for postage.

That said, HAPPY NEW YEAR!  Welcome to the future and all that.  The honesty you are developing in your expression on stage is...  Honestly?  It's breathtaking.  I read your blog tonight a thought at at time, taking breaths only in between.  (Though I must say it's quite unsettling to learn that you've been lying to us all these years.  Honestly!)

That theme of authenticity that you're dealing with is really at the heart of what makes greatness in an artist (in my never-so-humble opinion).  I know I can't really give any advice here (How could I advise you in being yourself?), but I would have you know that I'm quite taken with your willingness to acknowledge the validity of the "performer" as a true and meaningful aspect of your character.  Who doesn't want to be a little bigger, brasher, more stunning, "more perfect"?  Divas are people too.

Still, it's good to get a glimpse of the genuine article...  And don't let my compliments sully your shine!  Keep it true, and, yes, the red shoes do make us like you more.  I don't even see 'em yet, and I like you more.  How much more of your likability have you been keeping from us?  You got us off liking all sorts of other people when you might be enough to like all by your lonesome.  Show yourself, baby,

Kwame.