This is a rough draft/outline of my senior thesis. it is the product of a mushroom trip. i knocked it out at three this morning.


Collective Constructivism: A New Way Of Experiencing

Post-structuralist theory is built on a fallacy. This fallacy is the concept of the binary. Post-structuralism holds that there is a mainstream voice and a marginalized voice and that they are in a constant state of upheaval, that the two voices are reactions to each other. The very nomenclature – marginalized and mainstream – implies dominance of one over the other. In other words, post-structuralist theory implies that the mainstream defines what is marginalized and vice versa. This dualism does not exist. Simply because one voice is different from another does not mean it is the opposite. The world is not black and white, there are shades of grey. Yin has a spot of yang, Yang a bit of yin.
Polyphony literally means “many voices.” Mikhail Batkin postulated that there are many voices in any given text, such as individual characters, with the voice of the author being dominant as the author chooses the manner of presentation of those voices and so colors them. The voices may be harmonious, dissonant, or totally independant, but all are subsumed by the voice of the author. The text itself is essentially a presentation of the voice of the author.
Intertextuality is the idea that the manner in which one perceives a work or text is shaped by every other text one has encountered. Edmund Burke called this individual shaping of perception a “terministic screen.” In other words, ones understanding of the works of Plato affects ones understanding of the works of Aristotle, and vice versa.
Intertextuality applied to polyphony yields interesting results. From the moment one is a rational being, one is exposed to a grand clamor of voices – a polyphonic matrix. However, as one continues to be exposed to these voices, each voice shapes our perception of every other voice. Eventually, one only hears what one wants to hear. However, the fact that one chooses to assimilate a certain voice into one’s terministic screen does not affect the voices not assimilated. Those voices are still present in the matrix. Some voices may be more popular than others, but all voices are equally present.
Information is already distributed being distributed in this manner. On watching CNN, one may see on the screen a newscaster, a panel containing facts relevant the story being presented that moment, a breaking news ticker, and a stock ticker and one must process these simultaneously. One may consider the stock ticker completely irrelevant to the story being presented or one may consider the ticker completely relevant. Regardless, the ticker is there.
In the Zen sect of Buddhism, there is the concept of zazen, which literally translates to do-nothing. Zazen consists of meditating until one achieves a state of emptiness. It is in this state, free of pre-conceptions, that one supposedly achieves clarity and sees reality as it truly is. By focusing on nothing, one may see everything. Boxers use a similar technique while fighting. It is considered bad form to watching the opponents face or fists, for by concentrating on one area, the boxer will miss the opponents attack. A feint will not work on a good fighter.
Now, let us apply this to the polyphonic matrix. By giving no voice special consideration, all voices are given equal consideration.
Consider a text in which all voices in the text would be equally “loud” and would not be overwhelmed by the voice of any particular author. The text, so to speak, would be authored by the generators of those voices. The narratives, though parallel, would not necessarily be linear. The art of the text would lie in the choice of which voices to include.
This intertextual, non-focusing mode of experiencing the polyphonic matrix is collective constructivism.