DANGEROUS DANCES

Ballein: throwing so as to hit

WRITTEN, HANDMADE AND PRODUCED BY

Diego Agulló

EDITED BY

Louise Trueheart

THIS BOOK WOULDN´T EXIST WITHOUT:

Igor Dovricic, Agata Siniarska, Dmitry Paranyushkin, Paz Rojo, Jorge Ruiz Abánades, Juan Perno and

Javier Andrés Moral.

INTRODUCTION

The catastrophe is not what is still to come but rather that things continue to go as they are, wrote Walter

Benjamin on his Thesis on the concept of History. In addition, the catastrophe is to believe that there is

nothing else to be done now and to give up the attempt of answering the question what a body can do?

The catastrophe is to think that we already know what a body can do and how a body can move. We

must ask: How to move in the catastrophe? Is now a time of emergency? Or rather, are we the

emergency? The imperative seems to be clear: we must move! It is now or never! Yes, but how to move,

and how to move within a catastrophe?

This text is an attempt to dance this problem. It is articulated by the concept of ballein, a word of Greek

origin that means to throw so as to hit. Ballein is also the root for words such as “dance”, “problem”,

“devil” and “ballistics”. These four concepts make up the dance floor I will use to explore the concept of

mischief in order to respond to the question of how should I move and how should I exercise power?

Mischievous dances look at power not from the perspective of domination and occupation of static

positions but rather as a capacity to infiltrate oneself into domains of power, finding their fissures,

stimulating movement and change, generating confusion, messing up, letting the chaos to enter,

changing the order of things... It is a game of stimulation and displacement rather than a game of

domination.

Within this tangle, further questions come to the surface: how are philosophy and dance born? How are

they invited to happen? Or rather, how are they forced to happen? What provokes us to dance and to

think? How do philosophy and dance expose us to danger? In which way can they exercise power?

How do we understand being dangerous? What is a dangerous invitation to dance and to think? What

are a dangerous dance and a dangerous thought? How to solve the problem of suffering inherent to the

practice of throwing so as to hit? How to understand suffering as something immanent to the process of

hitting or being hit so as to move oneself and things around? How can suffering serve the affirmative

movement, of both the throw and the hit, and become its power supply?

This text finds the intimate affinity between dance and philosophy in the concept of problem and

invites the reader to perceive dance and philosophy as a form of ballistics—the art of throwing. On the

one hand, this text is an invitation to look at dance not necessarily as an artistic practice but rather as an

affirmative force that is intrinsically related with throwing so as to hit and that can potentially manifest

itself as an expression of the mischievous power that turns any domain into a dance floor. On the other

hand, this text also understands philosophy as an invitation to dance a problem, or, in other words,

philosophy is a practice of choreographing the trajectories of problems. Both dance and philosophy are

expressions of to throw so as to hit.

The reader will find numerous moments when I make use of etymology. My intention is not to

legitimate my perspective by unveiling the original meaning of a word, and neither to pretend that the

pertinent etymological interpretations I make are hard philology. My choice to use etymology, as a tool,

is founded in its ability to shake the conventional meanings of the words and highlight other possible

interpretations of meaning. The etymological approach to words is like a game that stimulates my

thinking and displays a wider spectrum of what a word can signify, as is my intention with the words

dance and philosophy in the case of this study.

INDEX

PART 1: BALLEIN

Danger and Dance

To be in the power of a strange master - The domain of dangerous power - The dangerousness of love

- Predictable dances

Ballein: to throw so as to hit

Throwing: the propulsion, the trajectory, the projectile, the target - Hitting: to attack, to attempt, to

propel, to achieve - The displacement of a carambole

Words from Ballein

Dance - Problem - Ballistics - Devil - Symbol - Metabolism - Embolism - Hyperbole

Bringing tempestuous weather

Problematic dances - Choreography and ballistics - Turbulences

PART 2: THROWING AND PHILOSOPHY

Boulesthai: dance and will

Ethics: the art of throwing - Choreographing life trajectories

The torpedo fish

Choreography and ethics - Socrates and the art of problematizing - Problematic encounters - The

wonder and the wound

Violence and thinking

Violating the intelligence: when a problem hits you - The boomerang effect: Nietzsche and dance -

Affinity with problems - Philosophy means to choreograph problems.

PART 3: MISCHIEVOUS DANCES

The power of mischief

Ossification - The child at play - Infiltrations and fissures - The certainty of destroying certainties

The dance fatale

Violence as an affirmative force - Dancing the change - Mischievous dances - To end badly - The

Mischievous Mission

PART 1: BALLEIN

DANGER AND DANCE

What if there was a secret affinity between dance and danger? What if dance was the response to a

dangerous invitation? That would imply danger as an inherent condition of dance, to look at danger as

the cause of dance, thereby making dance the reaction to danger.

A common denominator of this secret affair between dance and a danger is the word dan. Dan means

the one who judges, the one in power, a force of domination that exercises control within a domain

(dominus) of influence. Hence, we say don as an equivalent to sir, a title of honor that refers to a master.

If we look carefully at the etymology of danger, the first known meaning of this term was to be in the

power of a strange master, being possessed and dominated by the power of a person or thing such as love,

rage, or revenge. A domain is where the exercise of static power that generates a space of influence and

control. It is where the game of domination between master and slave occurs. The power that is

exercised in a domain is static power: the master occupies and stays in a fixed position as long as

possible.

Danger: mid-13c., "power of a lord or master, jurisdiction," from Anglo-French daunger, Old French

dangier "power, power to harm, mastery, authority, control" (12c., Modern French danger)

Dance: c.1300, from Old French dancier (12c., Modern French danser), of unknown origin, perhaps

from Low Frankish *dintjan and akin to Old Frisian dintje "tremble, quiver." A word of uncertain

origin but which, through French influence in arts and society, has become the primary word for this

activity from Spain to Russia (Italian danzare, Spanish danzar, Rumanian dansa, Swedish dansa,

German tanzen).

Dangier and dancier : since the origin of dance is unknown, I feel tempted to affirm that dance can be

explained through the same origin as danger. Hence, dan-cier invites us to think dance in relation to

domination: to dance means to dance under the power of a strange master. In this light, dance appears to

be an expression of subordination towards danger; being too close to a dangerous presence makes you

dance. This specific characterization of dance as „tremble and quiver“ is the physical effect of fear: being

in front of a powerful presence, suffering the domination of an influential powerful force. In this light,

dance is a physical reaction to danger from a position of submission within power´s domain of

influence.

Power is what can hit, and fear to be harmed provokes tremors. The affects of being hit are slight, quick,

and continuous vibratory movements. Following this chain of meanings, dance means to be moved in a

quivering manner by some external force. A tremble/tremor is a vibration or convulsion that shakes the

body with excitement or anger. Hence, dance seems to be an involuntary and uncontrollable reaction to

danger after being affected by the hit of an external force: to obey to the commands of an authoritarian

force.

In the 12th century, this intimidating force, danger, was represented by the power of being deeply

affected by love. Almost fifty percent of the uses of „dangier“ in old French are referring either to power,

or to love—to being struck by Cupid´s arrow. The dangerousness of love, in amatory poetry, is

especially represented by the seductive powers of a woman (most of the texts were written by men). The

woman is dangerous; she is empowered and dominates the men and sometimes appears in the form of

the devil, the femme fatale, leading men to dangerous and deadly situations. She came at me in sections.

More curves than a scenic railway. She was bad. She was dangerous. I wouldn't trust her any farther than I

could throw her. But she was my kinda woman (Fred Astaire in The Band Wagon, 1953) Not being loved

in return is a dangerous invitation to dance. How to dance unrequited love? How to dance lovesickness?

Leaving aside the topic of love, another clear example of a dangerous powerful influence is music. Music

is, doubtless, one of the most powerful forces. It is definitely common behavior to surrender to this

supreme invitation to dance. The influence of music is uncontrollable but also predictable, one seems to

obey to the commands of music. Plato (Republic) considered music as the most dangerous of the arts

because of its influence over the soul and its excess of emotional dominance: musical innovation is full of

danger to the State. Music is dangerous because its emotional appeal challenges the dominance of reason.

These quick considerations about the affinity between dance and danger, dance and power, are helpful,

at least in this first chapter, to identify a specific understanding of dance as a predictable response and

submission to power or, in another words, being within a domain of powerful influence. Dance as/is the

consequence of exposing one self to danger and then receiving an invitation to dance.

Since one attempt of this text is to problematize dance in relation to power and violence, there are some

spontaneous questions that appear at this very moment: is dance always a response to danger? Does

dance, in order to exist, need to be hit by a harmful uncontrollable force? Is dance a way of giving form

to the trembling reaction caused by the presence of a powerful and dangerous master? How to make one

´s own tremors dance? Can dance exist without suffering the influence of powerful dominion, without

being possessed by a form of domination? Can dance create its own domain of influence and therefore

become dangerous itself?

All these question marks constitute the overture for the next chapter, where, instead of looking at dance

as a shivering and fearful response to power, the attempt will consist of characterizing dance as a

movement that generates its own domain of influence, a dance that does not submit to danger but that

is dangerous itself, a dance that creates problems, a dance that happens unexpectedly and causes tremors

around.

Unlike old French etymology, the Greek version of dance will open up the spectrum of possibilities to

look at dance as an attacking force, something that can hit you, a self propelled body, dance as the

dangerous practice of throwing projectiles, tracing trajectories in space and hitting targets.

Ballein: to throw so as to hit

ballistics metabolism emblem discobolus

problem catabolism astroblem ballet

devil anabolism anfibology ballista

dance parable epibolism bolt

symbol hyperbole embolism bullet

What do all this words have in common? What is the secret affinity between them? Etymologically

speaking, they all share the same root, from Greek, ballein, which means to throw so as to hit, to shoot in

order to produce an impact, to project a trajectory expecting a final encounter, to send out a projectile

to hit a target. Ballein implies a double movement, first of all, the action of throwing, and second, the

action of hitting:

1.- THROWING

What/who throws? What motivates the throw? From where does the impulse come from? What is being

thrown? Are what throws and what is thrown the same? How does the trajectory look like? What is the

purpose of throwing?

Throwing, first of all, is an expression of a force, a capacity (and therefore a power) to cause change and

movement, to produce displacement, and to change the position of things. Throwing implies an

impulse, a propulsion and an effort to overcome a distance between two things. The throw allows the

thrower to reach something that is not him and that stands far away (e.g. an enemy). What is thrown is

the pro-jectile: something thrown forth = pro (forward) + iacere (to throw). The path of a projectile is

called tra-jectory, throwing across = tra: trans (across) + icere: to throw. Is this trajectory a result of a prior

agenda or plan? In that case, the thrower expects a certain outcome. Conversely, to what extent can the

trajectory be the result of unpredictable behavior? What is the purpose of throwing? Is it possible to aim

in specific a direction without having a purpose? How to aim without aiming towards a fixed target?

And in that case, how to understand this purpose without purposeness?

To throw also involves the random: the possibility that a trajectory can have an unpredictable encounter

with another trajectory or with an obstacle. Some trajectories are impossible to prevent or predict, and

therefore the final target remains unforeseeable.

2.- HITTING

What does a trajectory encounter? What are the unpredictable obstacles of any trajectory? What gets

hit? And what gets hit accidentaly? What does this hit produce? Is hitting the goal of throwing? Or, on

the contrary, a side effect? Was the target part of a prior agenda or rather a result of an unexpected

encounter?

To hit means, first of all, to forcefully come into contact with something. But depending on the

intentions and the consequences of the impact, the hit can be understood in at least four different ways:

− To attack: the main purpose of throwing is to hit a target. This target was part of a prior

agenda, there was a plan to aim towards a certain goal. This attack can be part of an already

existing conflict but it can also initiate a new battle. Being hit has forceful consequences: the

pain of being injured, a wound, a fissure, and therefore not only suffering the impact but

also remembering the impact (trauma, state of shock).

− To attempt: in the sense of experimenting, making a trial, or a venture. Any experiment

implies unpredictable outcomes and a great effort (endeavour), with a dose of forceful

consequences that have the potential to be violent. Also, one can be moved to throw out of

temptation: tempted to attempt.

− To propel: to drive forward by force, to come into contact and to cause to move in a certain

direction. The body that is being hit can also understand the propulsion as forceful

affection. Hence, the propulsion becomes stimulation, impulse, the continuation of

momentum, or a carom.

− To achieve: to hit also means to score, to successfully reach a difficult target. This is a

winning throw, an accomplishment, a successfully reached end.

In the four cases, the hit could have different motivations and different consequences. To produce an

impact is not necessarily an act of violence,. However, in all cases the impact does imply a certain force,

and this forceful contact or forceful encounter can be interpreted not only as an attack, but also as an

impulse, a propulsion, an invitation to move forward, a way of cancelling a state of immobility, a

driving force that makes a body travel through space, eventually with unpredictable outcomes,

unexpected trajectories, as with, for instance, a rebound after hitting. A collision between two bodies

can cause a carom (carambole): a hit that is followed by a rebound: when a body that was hit

successively strikes other bodies, like in a chain reaction. Following this logic, we can arrive at a new

understanding of the meaning of ballein: to throw so as to move to another position, or to throw so as to

generate a displacement. The displacement is double: the projectile that has been thrown changes its

position as well as the position of the body it hits, and, eventually with the consequence of carambole: a

third body can also get hit and be displaced.

Ballein: to throw so as to hit and to hit so as to displace. Displacement ensures that things continue

going on, avoids consolidation of the status quo, and ensures that power is not defined by staying in a

static position, but rather through the capacity to change positions. That things continue to go as they

are, this is the catastrophe, wrote Benjamin in his thesis on the concept of History. The catastrophe is

immobility. Only a throw that hits can make sure that things keep moving. The catastrophe is to think

that there is nothing else to be done, the catastrophe is to give up trying to answer to what can a body

do? The catastrophe is to think that we already know what a body can do.

Now, the main difficulty is how to solve the problem of suffering inherent to the practice of ballein. To

throw is ultimately affirmative but to hit is potentially negative because it can hurt. How to deal with the

fact that an impact can produce a wound? The experience of the wound is implied for each ballein.

How to subordinate suffering to the affirmation of throwing so as to hit, hitting so as to move oneself

and the things around? How to understand the advantage of having received an impact? How to

understand properly the meaning of ballein so suffering can serve the affirmative movement and

become its power supply?

To Ballein

I ballein, you ballein, he balleins, she balleins, we ballein, you ballein, they ballein.

Words from the same family of ballein

DANCE: to throw one´s own body.

Unlike dance understood as a shivering response to power and that submits to external influence, there

is a dance that does not submit to danger but that is dangerous itself. Dance comes from ballizein:

literally to throw one´s own body. These athletic dances come from ancient Greek. Bodies coming into

contact, colliding with each other, make us consider the affinity between dancing and fighting, dancing

and martial arts, choreography and war. In this light, dance means to throw one´s own body in order to

hit another body. The body becomes the projectile that traces a trajectory in space and time. It contains

a principle of self-propulsion. What is the target of dance? What does dance hit? Dance participates not

only from throwing but also from hitting. How does dance hit? Dance is intrinsically problematic and a

problem requires being danced.

There is a third etymology of dance that comes from Latin, from saltatio, which means to leap, to jump

but also to attack (the same root for insulting, which literally means to jump onto somebody.

In both cases the body functions as a weapon, as a projectile, something that is thrown in order to hit a

target. This invites us to think about the intimate connection between dancing and attacking, dancing

and stimulating, dancing and producing movement around. From saltare there is the word to assault,

jumping as a form of attacking. To assault means to violently physically attack, to set upon with

violence, to affect harmfully. But, is there any difference between jumping and dancing? Between

jumping onto somebody and dancing with somebody? Are the reasons why people dance and why

people fight the same? Is the impulse to dance violent? Is dance a much more sophisticated way of

channeling aggression, sexual energy or natural instincts of violence? Are martial arts the truest form of

Dance from Greek ballizein "to dance," literally "to throw one's body," ancient Greek dancing being

highly athletic. The word “ball” comes also from ballizein and means dancing party. The same with the

word “ballet”.

Dance from Latin saltare "to dance," frequentative of salire "to leap". "Dance" words frequently are

derived from words meaning "jump, leap".

dance? Is dance the art of fighting without fighting? How to hit while dancing? How can dance hit?

Can dance harmfully affect without making use of physical violence? Can dance assault somebody else´s

brain? Can dance trigger thinking?

BALLISTICS: the art of throwing.

Ballistics is the science of the movement and behavior of projectiles. A pro-jectile is something thrown

forth, a bullet for instance, a missile or a body, anything that can be thrown as a weapon. The word

bullet comes from ballistics and means a projectile that not only traverses the space but potentially also

traverses your body causing a wound. The word bole means shot and a ballista was an ancient military

machine for hurling stones, a catapult. The path of a projectile is called tra-jectory. The force of gravity

produces the parabolic trajectory. To hit: to strike, to collide, to crash, to destroy, to wound, to come

into forceful contact.

PROBLEM: thing thrown forward.

To pro-pose a problem, to throw a problem, to put it forward, a difficulty that has been thrown

forward, has been thrown out there, a problem falls right in your way. There is always something

malicious and devilish about proposing problems, to problematize is devilish. How does a problem

affect you when it hits you? A problem requires being danced.

Ballistics: 1753, "art of throwing; science of projectiles," with -ics + Latin ballista "ancient military

machine for hurling stones," from Greek ballistes, from ballein "to throw, to throw so as to hit," also in

a looser sense, "to put, place, lay;" from PIE root*gwele- "to throw, reach," in extended senses "to

pierce" (cognates: Sanskrit apa-gurya"swinging,"balbaliti"whirls, twirls;" Greek bole "a throw, beam,

ray," belemnon "dart, javelin,"belone"needle").

DEVIL: to throw apart.

Comes from diabolos and refers to a movement of throwing apart, an attack that separates with violence.

The Devil is what separates, what throws apart, what cuts in two producing a fissure, an opening. The

Devil appears unexpectedly, all of a sudden, in the middle of your way, cutting (traversing) the pathway

in two (critical juncture). The devil is “the” event, a slash in time. There is a before and after of the devil

appearance.

Diabolos also means to slander, and connects with the idea that appeared before when looking at dance

as a projectile, an assault, or a saltatio (to insult). A connection seems to exist between jumping onto

somebody and a malicious injurious statement issued through oral communication. To attack also

means to criticize strongly, to destabilize an opponent. Attacking somebody verbally can become a type

of invitation to dance, a way of provoking a reaction, a call to dance, a call to perform a movement

back.

One cannot ignore an invitation to dance coming from the Devil. The most efficient invitation to

dance is a hit, something that sets you directly into motion. Another condition for the possibility to

dance is a previous pain before starting to dance, or the suffering of an open wound.

SYMBOL: to throw together.

Problem: late 14c., "a difficult question proposed for solution," from Old French problème (14c.) and

directly from Latin problema, from Greek problema "a task, that which is proposed, a question;" also

"anything projecting, headland, promontory; fence, barrier;" also "a problem in geometry," literally

"thing put forward," from proballein "propose," from pro "forward" (see pro-) + ballein "to throw"

Devil: The Late Latin word is from Ecclesiastical Greek diabolos, in general use "accuser, slanderer,"

from diaballein "to slander, attack," literally "throw across," from dia-"across, through" + ballein "to

throw"

If the devil throws apart, the symbol is what throws together what was separated by the devil. The

symbol is the scar after the wound. Therefore, the relation between Devil and Symbol is dialectical.

METABOLISM: to throw over.

A metabolism is a throw that provokes a change, a transformation. A living body is a complex process

of metabolism. A body is changing, a body is throwing itself over: to throw oneself in order to become

other: to distance oneself. Without throwing there is no change.

Catabolism: to throw down. Destructive metabolism that provides energy.

Anabolism: to throw upwards. Constructive metabolism.

EMBOLISM: to throw in.

An embolism is an insertion, an obstruction, an interposition. A migratory movement of an embolus

that causes a blockage (occlusion) of a blood vessel in another part of the body is followed by sudden

unconsciousness and paralysis.

Epibolism: to throw upon. A throw that adds a new layer

HYPERBOLE: to throw beyond.

A hyperbole is an Exaggeration, an excess. Hiperballein: hyperdance. An extravagant statement or

assertion not intended to be understood literally but to produce an impact.

A parable (para-bolé), to throw alongside

Symbol: early 15c., "creed, summary, religious belief," from Late Latin symbolum "creed, token, mark,"

from Greek symbolon "token, watchword, sign by which one infers; ticket, a permit, license", literally

"that which is thrown or cast together," from assimilated form of syn- "together" + bole "a throwing, a

casting, the stroke of a missile, bolt, beam," from bol-, nominative stem of ballein "to throw"

Metabolism: in physiology sense, 1878, from French métabolisme, from Greek metabole "a change,"

from metaballein "to change," from meta- "over" + ballein "to throw"

BRINGING TEMPESTUOUS WEATHER

When does dance become a problem? When does a body that is thrown across the space become a

difficulty, a puzzle or an astonishing event? The problematic body -the dance that becomes a problem-

is the body whose movement generates a problem in the space, a movement that implies a difficulty

that hits you and puzzles you. How can a dance hit? And hit what? Another body? Or the audience’s

perception? A difficult dance is not the dance that is difficult to perform but the dance that creates

difficulties in a space, that becomes an obstacle, that paralyzes you.

The etymological considerations regarding the meaning of dance stimulate the potential interpretations

of the practice of choreography. If dance is understood as an affirmative force, choreography becomes

the organization of the trajectories of affirmative forces. Choreography, ultimately, deals with

trajectories of forces, not with bodies. After having linked dance and danger, dance and the art of

ballistics, we can understand that there is an intimate relationship between choreography and the art of

problematizing, namely, throwing projectiles (ballistics), bullets, bodies into space and time, or, in other

words, the set of practices that projects problematic trajectories in space and time while transforming

any situation into a dangerous domain. The question for choreography appears under the form of

multiple exciting questions such as how to turn any situation into a problematic situation? How to

choreograph an attack? How to problematize space and time by throwing bodies? How to project

affirmative forces? How to generate domains of influence instead of submitting to already given

domains? How to open pathways for new life trajectories to happen? Choreographing life trajectories?

Choreography as ars vivendi: instead of the sculpture of the self, we should say the choreography of the

self. Dancing one´s own life trajectory. We dance our existence, our fate, our problems, our time. Each

“time” asks to be danced in specific way. How to dance accordingly to the contemporary time?

To make a dance project is to project problems. The mission of articulating problems belongs

intrinsically to the practice of choreography. To articulate problems implies to throw out question

marks; bodies become question marks, questions are thrown into the distance, a difficulty transforms

the scenario into a controversial and difficult scenario. Problems turn the situation into a turbulent

event, into a domain of dangerous influences. To practice dance is now seen as the art of generating

dilemmas, a turbulence that transform the space into a puzzle and generates perplexity and occasionally

vertigo because the situation turns into trouble, a turbid agitated confused disordered event.

Chorography is the art of throwing invitations to dance, choreography is not about “situations” or

“contexts” but rather about “domains”: choreography turns situations into dangerous domains of

influence. The choreographer brings tempestuous weather on a sunny day.

Looking carefully at the etymology of tempest, there is a link to the notion of plague and epidemic. The

tempestuous weather that the choreographer brings could function as a choreomania or "Dancing

mania" also known as "dancing plague". This is especially important since we started talking about

expanded choreography: how to expand a practice implies thinking in terms of strategies and tactics of

intervention, occupation and accessibility. In which sense is choreography different from ballistics?

What is clear is that to problematize implies necessarily to be ready to operate within a frame of

tensions, controversy, discord and uncertainty. To be the pain in the ass is not an easy mission, especially

if the rest of the participants in this fight are not tolerant enough to operate within tempestuous

weather conditions. Sometimes this is due to conformism, unwillingness to spend energy on resolving

problems; we all know how much patience a puzzle demands in order to be solved. In other occasions

this lack of will to participate in situations of discord comes from a matter of education: we have not

been educated to understand conflict as a situation of normality, we haven’t learned the gentleman’s

agreement yet. Discord is not accepted as the standard frame of interaction.

How much do we need the stormy weather to blow up our habitual practices and provoke us to throw

our bodies into the turbulence of an uncertain event? Welcome the storm and let the projectiles dance.

Become tsunami.

Turbulent: early 15c., "disorderly, tumultuous, unruly" (of persons), from Middle French turbulent

(12c.), from Latin turbulentus "full of commotion, restless, disturbed, boisterous, stormy," figuratively

"troubled, confused," from turba "turmoil, crowd" (see turbid: 1620s, from Latin turbidus "muddy, full

of confusion," from turbare "to confuse, bewilder," from turba "turmoil, crowd," probably from Greek

tyrbe "turmoil, tumult, disorder," from PIE *(s)twer- (1) "to turn, whirl"

Tempest: "violent storm," late 13c., from Old French tempeste "storm; commotion, battle; epidemic,

plague" (11c.), from Vulgar Latin *tempesta, from Latin tempestas "a storm; weather, season, time, point

in time, season, period," also "commotion, disturbance,". Tempestuosus: "stormy, turbulent,".

PART 2: THROWING AND PHILOSOPHY

BOULESTHAI: DANCE AND WILL

Plato, in Cratylus 420c, wrote: all these words (bole, boule, boulesis, boulesthai) involve the idea of shooting

(bole). On the contrary, the term “aboulia” appears to be a failure to hit, as if a person did not shoot or hit

that which he shot at or wished or planned or desired. Is Plato himself who suggests the etymological

affinity between to shoot and to wish, between ballein and the word boule, which can be also translated

as “will”, to want something beneficial (boulesthai). There is, indeed, an affinity if we understand

ballein, the act of throwing so as to hit, as the tendency towards something that the will wishes. If we

want something, we “aim” towards it, we project ourselves, we throw ourselves in order to achieve it.

The term boulesthai expresses a tendency towards a goal, to reach a target, or to hit a target. Bouleuesthai

means the process of deliberation in order to trace a trajectory: shooting oneself towards a desired target.

To choreograph a life trajectory has something to do with the art of ballistics. Plato, with pointing out

the possibility that all these words (bole, boule, boulesis, boulesthai) also come from ballein, he is

looking at Ethics as an art of throwing (ballistics) . There is indeed a similarity between throwing so as

to hit and tending towards a good (an inclination in ethical sense).

Hence, the question of how to move becomes now: how are you tending? How are you dancing your life?

How do you throw yourself in life? How do you project your life as a multiplicity of trajectories? Are

this trajectories following prestablished choreographies, or, on the contrary your life is moving towards

uncertain directions? What makes you want what you want? Are you sure that you want what you want?

And what tempts you to move? A self propelled impulse or an external attractive force? Is it about

tending towards what your will wants or, on the contrary, you are gravitating towards a center of

attraction? What are the attractive forces that distract us from our mission? Or the pre-established

pathways that are driven by tending towards a center of attraction? Are you submitting yourself to the

influence of external attractive forces or, on the other hand, are you dancing according to your own

will?

THE TORPEDO FISH. Dancing the problem

Apart from the evidence that philosophers should dance more and should perform the movement of

throwing one´s own body into a situation more often, what should the urgent connection between

philosophy and dance look like? Does it have something to do with guiding bodies? Or directing

trajectories? Or, how to move in life? How to behave in life? This brings us to think of choreography

and ethics together. Which life trajectories to follow? To learn how to conduct oneself in life, to generate

situations and contexts for problems to appear, for thought to take place. The philosopher should be

like a choreographer creating context, and not just waiting to be invited to them. This is a hybrid

between a philosopher and a choreographer, someone that experiments with life trajectories, someone

that throws one´s body into a situation turning it into a problematic uncertain domain.

In that sense, Socrates was a choreographer and Plato scripted those choreographies. Reading Plato, the

relation between theater and philosophy is evident. They have something in common: the need of a

pre-existing frame where the action can be hosted, a philosophical playground for the dialogical

encounters to happen. Both philosophy and theater need to be brought into play.

With Socrates, philosophy and problems belong together. We can actually understand the work of Plato

as a series of problematic encounters or invitations to dance with a problem. Any problematic encounter

is always an unexpected invitation to dance. Apparently it was easy to encounter Socrates by chance in

any part of the city, on your way to the market or coming back home and better to not bump into him

because, as the torpedo fish does, it will hit you and affect you harmfully: you will be paralyzed: you will

have a problem. This problem consisted of being invited to a dance that you cannot refuse. For Socrates

to philosophize and to problematize is one and the same thing—be it to problematize oneself or others.

Due to this „problematic“ specificity of the philosopher, in Plato´s dialogue Meno, Socrates is called the

torpedo fish because his practice consisted of "stunning" people with his puzzling questions. A torpedo

fish (electric ray) is the electric fish that will paralyze you if you step on it. But torpedo also means

projectile. Socrates’ invitation to dance was a very peculiar one, since the invitation to dance ends up in

the absence of movement—paralysis. The affects that Socrates produced on the people he would

encounter problematized them, in other words, he provoked doubt and uncertainty about what was

considered true knowledge and its domination. Looking at Socrates, ballein means to throw problems

across the domain of knowledge producing a fissure (doubt) in the static power, in other words, to hit

and destroy certainties.

The affinity between philosophy and choreography consists of generating situations of problematic

encounters between bodies. Plato wrote theater pieces and the dialogues that can be understood as little

dances: situations where problems are thrown in the middle of people´s trajectories producing loss of

orientation or paralysis.

Paralysis and dizziness are the effects of Socrates’ invitation to dance. Socrates is inviting us to dance

with the problem, or more precisely, to dance the problem. During this problematic encounter of two

or more trajectories, there is the risk of losing one´s own trajectory, losing orientation from an

existential point of view. What before was certain, now becomes uncertain. Philosophizing may begin

with some simple doubts about accepted beliefs. The initial impulse to philosophize may arise from

suspicion: that we do not fully understand, and have not fully justified, our most basic beliefs about the

world.

The connection between philosophy and a harmful affection actually has been considered the origin of

philosophy itself. In Plato (Theaetetus 155d) we can read that philosophy begins in wonder. Theaetetus's

exclamation: by the gods, Socrates, I am lost in wonder (thaumazô) when I think of all these things. It

sometimes makes me quite dizzy. Doubt and wonder, not only as the effect of the philosophical exercise

but also as what caused philosophy to appear. From the term thaumazein come the terms trauma and

wonder, and it refers to the specific pathos of being speechless after having been unexpectedly affected

by wonder, being wounded by wonder, by what is beyond words. Usually we call this a state of shock.

Torpedo: 1520s, "electric ray" (flat fish that produces an electric charge to stun prey or for defense),

from Latin torpedo "electric ray," originally "numbness, sluggishness" (the fish so called from the effect

of being jolted by the ray's electric discharges), from torpere "be numb". The sense of "explosive device

used to blow up enemy ships" is first recorded 1776, as a floating mine; the self-propelled version is

from c.1900. Related: Torpedic.

Wonders, wounds, traumas... the practice of philosophy, in order to be born, needs a previous

experience of being hit, being affected harmfully: philosophy needs a wound-wonder to exist. A view

that is echoed by Aristotle: It was their wonder, astonishment, that first led men to philosophize and still

leads them. For Aristotle, philosophy was born from the wonder and the experience of perplexity, to be

surprised by the marvel of a stunning event; being astonished, bewildered, disoriented, confused. There

is a pathos at the beginning of the philosophical movement, the pathos of suffering a problematic

encounter with something beyond words, something that hits you and sets you into motion towards the

philosophical quest: the wound makes the philosopher wonder about the entire existence. The whole

world becomes a big problem.

Since Socrates, to problematize has been the main task of philosophy, to become the torpedo fish, to

throw difficulties out there that require an investigation, a quest, a search, to point out that reality is

problematic, that the world as such, is nothing but a big problem. A problem implies that something

becomes a case. Philosophy is nothing different from a detective game. Both need a case to be

investigated. A detective wishes for the perfect case to solve. When the whole world becomes the case of

your investigation, the whole world requires resolution. This is the case of the philosopher-detective: to

wonder about everything, to live in aporia, to question everything, to problematize the whole world.

Trauma: 1690s, "physical wound," medical Latin, from Greek trauma "a wound, a hurt; a defeat,"

from PIE *trau-, extended form of root *tere- (1) "to rub, turn," with derivatives referring to twisting,

piercing, etc. (see throw (v.). Sense of "psychic wound, unpleasant experience which causes abnormal

stress" is from 1894.

Wonder: Old English wundor "marvelous thing, miracle, object of astonishment," from Proto-

Germanic *wundran. In Middle English it also came to mean the emotion associated with such a sight

(late 13c.).

VIOLENCE AND THINKING

What triggers the thinking? What invites the thinking to dance? Wonder, provocation, violence, a hit

are all potential triggers. Being affected by a problem with a dose of violence is the pre-condition for

thinking. Thoughts are born of a movement, of an impulse, of a violent sign.

There is an intimate affinity between philosophy and the act of throwing (ballein). The philosopher is

like a baseball pitcher: the thrower of a problematic ball. Socrates and pro-ballein, the dice throw of

Nietzsche, Nietzsche throwing himself into a horse in Turing, Heidegger and the concept of

“thrownness” (being thrown into the world) The thrower of the project is thrown in his own throw,

Wittgenstein throwing away the ladder, Brian Massumi claiming that a concept is a brick that can be

used to build up a house or to be thrown through the window. Deleuze didn´t only throw concepts

through the window but also he threw himself... the art of defenestration looks at death as the final

problem that needs to be treated as another invitation to dance (dance as a jump, in this case)

That the intelligence needs to be violated in order to think, this is a thought that already appeared in

Book VII (523-525) of Plato´s Republic, in the fingers passage: what the intelligence needs in order to

be triggered is to be provoked by a contradiction. To attack also means to criticize strongly, to exercise

being critical. Nietzsche, who understood philosophy as criticism, said that one has to philosophize with

a hammer; to be critical with a hammer in your hand. Nietztsche´s books are invitations to dance.

Nietzsche´s considerations on culture bring the idea that thought needs to be forced or to be affected

with violence in order to occur. This is the idea of philosophizing with a hammer. Also in aphorism 292

of Beyond Good and Evil, Nietzsche depicts a philosopher as someone that is constantly being hit by

his own thoughts:

A philosopher: that is a man who is struck by his very own thoughts as if from outside, as if from above and

below, as if they are experiences and lightning strikes tailor-made for him; who himself is perhaps a storm

which moves along pregnant with new lightning flashes; a fateful man, around whom things always rumble

and mutter and gape and mysteriously close.

In Nietzsche, the affirmative force is reflexive: it unfolds returning always to itself. What throws the

problem and what the problem hits are one and the same thing. This is what I call the boomerang effect

of the philosopher. The philosopher carries the tempestuous weather, and provokes the storm and the

hit of thunder upon himself. The philosopher is the being that walks carrying a storm. He is

simultaneously the cause and the target of the problem; he throws the problem against himself. The

process of thinking becomes a storm directed at himself and the thinking itself becomes a problem.

Thinking problematically hits itself. Thought is under constant threat of self-problematization. To walk

together with a problem is walking and carrying a storm. And how to give to this problematic walking

the form of a dance? How to dance the problem? How to dance in the rhythm of the storm?

Dance plays a big role in Nietzsche´s philosophy and dance is, together with the child at play and the

laughter, the affirmative image and creative force of the will to power. To say power means to say what I

can become, what I want to become. The question of power is the question of how a body can throw so

as to hit, how a body can dance? In dance, a transmutation operates that makes heaviness become light.

I would believe only in a god who could dance. And when I saw my devil I found him serious, thorough,

profound, and solemn: it was the spirit of gravity - through him all things fall.

Dance functions as a synonym of „becoming“ or rather a process of metabolism (meta-ballein) in order

to assimilate everything that is heavy and transform it into lightness. Dance, like any affirmative force in

Nietzsche, says yes to the negation. To affirm in Nietzsche means to affirm also the negation, to say yes

to suffering and therefore to say yes to the consequences of affecting others harmfully. To say yes to

suffering involves a process of metabolism: transforming suffering into fuel for affirmative forces. This is

what Nietzsche calls the great suffering, which is not a passive suffering. Instead of submitting oneself,

one can turn the pain and suffering into active suffering:

In man creature and creator are united: in man there is material, fragment, excess, clay, dirt, nonsense, chaos;

but in man there is also creator, form-giver, hammer hardness, spectator divinity, and seventh day: do you

understand this contrast? BGE 225

The will to power is self-contradictory; it is simultaneously pulled toward becoming both affirmative

and negative. The task seems to be related with the capacity of dancing this paradox: finding the right

oscillatory movement in order to resist the temptation of affirming without negating or negating

without affirming.

I say unto you: one must still have chaos in oneself to be able to give birth to a dancing star. I say unto

you: you still have chaos in yourselves. Nietzsche, "Zarathustra's Prologue"

How to transform an attack into an invitation to dance? Deleuze was fascinated with what is exactly the

affinity between a problem and a person. What causes a person to have an affinity with this problem

and not with a different one? How does this intimate encounter happen? Following Deleuze´s Proust

and Signs, what triggers thought is the violence of the sign occurring under the conditions of chance. It

is not worth it to attempt to think by good will: simply sitting at the working table and starting to

write. You cannot plan to write a good book, good will does not activate thinking, only the unexpected

violence of the sign can oblige us to think and lucky the one who encounters the sign before

encountering death. Truth appears always under the form of the unexpected.

Being hit by a problem by chance, unexpectedly encountering a problem, crashing against a problem

obliges one to accompany the problem and its trajectory. Where does a problem take you? A problem

(pro-ballein) is by definition what is thrown across, what has fallen in the middle of the way producing

perplexity and sometimes affecting harmfully. Thought requires force and to be obliged by pathos, a

violent sign, a harmful affection. To be obliged to accompany a problem means a kind of predestination

to a certain affinity with that problem, and not with another one. Maybe this is the definition of having

a mission. To deal with a problem implies to deal with its trajectory. The trajectory of a problem sets you

into motion, demands a response, and a true problem demands an immediate reaction. A problem does

not ask for a solution but for a response. A problem invites you to perform a movement. To what extent

can someone choose their problem? Or on the contrary, do problems choose us? How far can you dance

the trajectory of a problem? To what extent can you control that trajectory and direct it into unexpected

pathways?

Exactly these questions bring together choreography and philosophy as two forms of ballistics (the art of

throwing). How to choreograph a problem? Isn´t it this what philosophy does? Philosophy, while

choreographing problems, generates a cartography of problems. It is crucial to distinguish the

cartography from the movement that generates the cartography. Philosophy is not only the traces left in

a battlefield, it is also the battle itself. The cartography of thought is simply detritus: an outcome of

thinking. To practice philosophy means to deal with the movement of the trajectory of a problem. This

practice in motion produces an erosion on the space that becomes the cartography. The History of

Philosophy is simply the traces left by the different trajectories of the multiple problems. Philosophers,

when they create concepts or write books, leave traces so other people can follow them and recreate the

trajectory of a problem. But philosophy is first of all a practice that deals with the encounter, throwing

and directing trajectories of problems, in the same way that ballistics deals with bullets and rockets and

in the same way that choreography does with bodies.

Philosophy cannot be reduced to the cartographical outcome; philosophy cannot be reduced to

concepts. Philosophy is an invitation to dance problems.

PART 3: MISCHIEVOUS DANCES

THE POWER OF MISCHIEF

The state of absence of movement or change, namely, any process of becoming set in a rigidly

conventional pattern, can be named in multiple ways: ossification, hardening, stagnation, entropy,

conformism, logics of perpetuation, rigid or moldy systems of beliefs, sets of certainties, resistance to

change, excess of solidification, coagulation, opinions, habits, clichés, stereotypes, hard conventions,

laziness, atrophy of institutional, despotism of the costumes, dead ends... to name a few. There is, in any

system or structure, a natural tendency towards a so-called logic of maintenance. For instance, a field of

knowledge as much as any other semi-stable institution or established artist, will all struggle to the end

of time for their own perpetuation, following the logic of maintenance in order to preserve their own

subsistence, keeping something in the same proper condition; taking care that the conditions do not

change and are not affected by chaotic forces.

The problem of perpetuation generates myopic vision when time comes to propose alternative ways of

living, or alternative life trajectories. Frozen forms of organization not only generate their own domains

of static power, but they also generate methods to evaluate and legitimize who or what should be

included or excluded. What succeeds is what fits into the standards and will contribute to maintain the

domain, in other words, the ones that are not dangerous. The ones who where not validated will remain

outside with no possibility to succeed within the institutional values. Now, how to inject movement or a

dose of chaos within the structure? How to operate within this state of affairs? How to move? How to

inject a driving force, an impulse, a thrust, a propulsive force, or an invitation to dance a change? How

to throw across an invitation to dance a transformation, to dance an affirmative movement? How to

exercise the power of changing the state of affairs? How much chaos and violence should be included in

this throw? Does any injection of chaos and movement imply danger and harmful consequences? What

is the role of malice? What is the devil’s role?

At this moment I must confess that the real title of this text is not dangerous dances but mischievous

dances. I propose “mischief” as a specific way of understanding ballein, or, in other words, to give an

answer to how to throw in order to hit? . Instead of dangerousness, let´s think about mischievousness.

What does it mean to be mischievously dangerous?

Mis-chief is the opposite of to achieve: to come to a head. Mischief does not come to a head, or, it

comes to a head badly. It implies either misfortune or failure when things come to an end. If the prior

agenda of a throw was to hit/achieve a certain target, a mischievous throw is one whose trajectory

deviates unexpectedly and the projectile does not reach the predictable target. The danger, in this case,

is the danger of not successfully achieving a goal while producing an unpredictable impact on an

unpredictable target.

From these considerations I would like to approach the following questions: how should i move? And,

how should i exercise power? Mischief invites us to think power not from the perspective of domination

and occupying static positions, but from the perspective of what a body can do: the capacity or ability

to traverse a domain of power stimulating movement and change, generating confusion, messing up,

letting the chaos to enter, changing the order of things, causing caramboles... It is a game of stimulation

rather than a game of domination; it is displacement rather than immobility. Mischief´s intentions are

not to be dangerous within a domain of influence and to control, causing things to stay static. Instead,

mischief invites travel through a dangerous domain; it invites the projection of transversal trajectories

across a domain of power. The power of mischief is the power to traverse power. Mischievous power,

because it is dynamic and non-static, avoids the temptation of staying in one single static position for

long. It operates more like a secret agent; it does not seek to dominate from a position of power but

Mischief: c.1300, "evil condition, misfortune, need, want," from Old French meschief "misfortune,

harm, trouble; annoyance, vexation" (12c., Modern French méchef ), verbal noun from meschever "come

or bring to grief, be unfortunate" (opposite o achieve), frommes- "badly" + chever "happen, come to a

head," from Vulgar Latin *capare "head," from Latin caput "head". Meaning "harm or evil considered as

the work of some agent or due to some cause" is from late 15c. Sense of "playful malice" first recorded

1784.

rather to traverse a domain of power, turning things upside down, allowing chaos to enter. The

intentions of a mischievous agent are not to dominate others by imposing a domain of control, but

rather to unexpectedly stimulate the others into movement. The power of a mischievous agent is to turn

any domain into a dance floor and to turn any domination into an invitation to dance. But an

invitation to dance can harmfully affect you. The mischievous agent is malicious per se, which implies a

more playful understanding of ballein: to throw so as to hit in order to produce movement, change, and

stimulation. The malicious aspect of mischief is not driven by the intentions to injure, rather, it is

driven by the purpose of producing and stimulating impact that would lead things to change their

positions (displacement).

Mischievous dances are a transformative practice. They are malicious dances, harmful dances,

problematic dances, dances that cause trouble, dances that causes annoyance in another, dances that end

badly, dances that cause misfortune for somebody. The first meaning of mischief was something that

ends badly, something whose trajectory deviates from the straight line, a movement that does not follow

the standard normative trajectories, something that unexpectedly turns out of the trajectory without

achieving the predictable goal, a projectile that at the end changes trajectory.

Mischief keeps the capacity to surprise oneself and surprise the others. A mischievous ballein is a throw

that hits the unpredictable target: there is an unexpected deviation at the end that misses the predictable

target but produces unpredictable outcomes. The mischievous throw is the unpredictable throw that

produces a time of emergency: one must throw now, now or never. The quality of emergent refers to a

sudden or unexpected appearance. An emergency is an unforeseen occurrence that demands immediate

action, a pressing necessity: the exigency of a throw.

The child at play is the maximum expression of mischievous power: the capacity to change the order of

things. Children are powerful because they can turn any domain into a dance floor, a playground for

mischievous dances. The power of being the game initiator, the power of proposing games. Mischievous

dances are dances without an invitation (uninvited dances and choreographies of infiltration), dances

that don´t impose a domain but traverse the domain: they move across, pass through and throw

problems inside the domain involving the others in difficulties and causing embarrassment. The task of

a mischievous choreography is no longer to organize domains of influence but rather to choreograph an

infiltration, to get access into a domain projecting transversal trajectories, throwing problems across the

domain of power in order to stimulate movement and change the order of things.

To choreograph an infiltration implies to think of unpredictable ways of getting access, and thus to

increase the level of accessibility of a structure. A dance of infiltration requires an entrance to be

traversed, and a wound is also an entrance. The mischievous ballein has to throw in order to hit, in

other words, to hit the wound of the structure, a fissure, an opening to pass through. A mischievous

dance either generates fissures (devil) or takes advantage of the existence of a system’s Achilles heel. A

mischievous dance is the unexpected movement that that finds a fissure and bounces into a domain of

static power. The dynamic powers of mischief are to put into a trance (entrance), infiltrate, and create

permeability within the system.

In this light, power is not for domination but rather for movement generation. The power of an

invitation to dance is to set into motion, and is also power to invite one to dance. It is necessary to

understand that being mischievously dangerous is not about imposing violence or establishing a domain

of influence where power takes care to keep things immobile. On the contrary, mischievous power

invites things to move, projects movement across the domain, generates chaos and confusion, and

invites change to happen. The intention of dangerous power is to dominate, to ask for submission,

while mischievous power does not ask for submission, but invites to dance and play: the domain turns

into a dance floor.

The mischievous ballein provokes things to not continue to go on as they are. They highlight the errors

of a system, they cancel the catastrophe: to throw so as to hit certainties, this is the only certainty, that it

is needed to hit the certainties over and over again.

THE DANSE FATALE

Instead of femme fatale let´s talk about danse fatale, a dance that causes ruin or destruction, a dance that

leads you towards a disaster. A danse fatale is a dangerous dance, a bad dance, an empowered dance, a

dance that produces harmful effects, or that causes trembling. It creates its own domain of influence and

has the power to turn a situation into a ruin: if the dance comes, this is gonna end badly.

Like a femme fatale, a danse fatale knows about the art of seduction and temptation in order to throw

an invitation to dance. A danse fatale throws an invitation to a dangerous dance. Temptation is a way of

inviting rising desire; temptation is an attractive invitation that cannot be refused. The desire is too

strong and the stimulation is too powerful. Only the Devil can tempt you into something wrong…

maybe you shouldn´t have accepted that invitation to dance, the danger is too big. `

Tempting the dance and attempting to dance. Attempting to move and to be moved. Any attempt is an

attack and an experiment, a trial, an effort in the performance or accomplishment of what is difficult or

uncertain. An invitation to a dangerous dance is an experiment that requires effort, requires violence,

and requires flirting with danger and uncertainty. An invitation to a dangerous dance is also an

invitation to study devilology. We all carry our demons, our traumas and ghosts that make us move. We

accept the invitation to dance the demons that inhabit us in order to wake up the uncontrollable part of

us. Socrates also had his Demon. It seems that a certain dose of evil is needed in order for philosophy

and dance to exist, to be stimulated and excited by a hit.

What is this bearable violence? A tolerable harmful affection? How to learn that any attack can be

transformed into an invitation to dance? And on the other side, how to be ready to invite the others to a

dangerous dance? How to accept that our movements can be dangerous for others? Is it ultimately all

about having good intentions? Am I allowed to hit a target if it is for the sake of the target to cancel its

immobility? How to hit without any physical contact? How to discover ways of attacking and hitting

each other not for the sake of damaging but rather for the sake of stimulating? How to fight without

fighting? How to fight not in order to defeat the opponent but rather to dance with the opponent?

How can a dance hit your brain, your sensibility, your perception, your impressions, your ideas, your

apparatus, your pre-conceptions, your habits, your statements? What is this sophisticated form of

violence that affects invisibly and produces not only wounds but also wonders? Should we learn to

create mischievous games where this kind of violence is permitted? Games with invitations to dangerous

dances?

Dance and philosophy require a certain dose of playful malice. The wound is needed to see the wonder.

The fissure is needed to find an opening. The ruin then becomes a dance floor for divine accidents.

Being ready to throw invitations to dance and to accept invitations to dance. Being ready to dance the

problem throwing oneself, like dice, into the uncertain. Mischievous dances are the dances that one can

never finish dancing because the invitation never ceases to be thrown. The mischievous mission will

never be fully accomplished and it knows that it must fail before it begins.

When it was too late, when everything got lost and ended badly, when the party was over and everyone

left, then, more than ever, it makes sense to dance. If the devil appears one must accept the invitation to

dance. Dance on the tightrope. Surprise yourself in what you are capable of doing. Dance as if it would

be your last dance, day-by-day, ballein!