DANGEROUS DANCES

Ballein: throwing so as to hit

WRITTEN, HANDMADE AND PRODUCED BY
Diego Agull
EDITED BY
Louise Trueheart
THIS BOOK WOULDNT EXIST WITHOUT:
Igor Dovricic, Agata Siniarska, Dmitry Paranyushkin, Paz Rojo, Jorge Ruiz Abnades, Juan Perno and
Javier Andrs 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 ballisticsthe 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 powers 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 12
th
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 loveto being struck by Cupids 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 ones 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 ones 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 ones 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 elses
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 problme (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-bol), 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 mtabolisme, 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 audiences
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 ones 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 havent learned the gentlemans
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 ones 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 ones 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 thingbe it to problematize oneself or others.
Due to this problematic specificity of the philosopher, in Platos 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 movementparalysis. 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 peoples 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 ones 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 (thaumaz) 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 didnt 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 Platos 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. Nietztsches books are invitations to dance.
Nietzsches 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 Nietzsches 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 Deleuzes 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? Isnt 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, clichs, 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 devils 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, lets 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. Mischiefs 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 mchef), 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 dont 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 systems 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 lets 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 shouldnt 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!