intuition as method

and ambiguous desires

ok, i finally started recognising this pattern in my work. in the way i think, write, assemble and make sense of things. and in the way how i am legitimising (or trying to) them as science. elsewhere they call it methodology. the way you do your work. the steps followed to come to some findings (lol) and conclusions (i will never get there). honestly, how can we find novelty in the cyclical, ancestral, infinite worlds we live in? and how can we dissociate it from our principles or, how they call it, ethics? fine, it might be a “finding” for me, humble student, or the so-called academic community, but it surely isn't for many before us, for many beings walking other pathways and living different embodiments. also, how can i come to conclusions about any given subject? i am rather constantly arriving at ethereal interpretations based on undoing, questioning, (self)contradicting, conflicting practices. i do not even try to follow a straight line of thought or writing anymore. the classic 1. introduction, 2. theoretical and 3. methodological frameworks, 4. analysis/discussion and 5. conclusion and 6. bibliography kind of work, you know? mine is chaotic, fungal, viral, extensive, multi-censorial, self-committed, mutual, hyper-empathic, unplanned, rooted, materialised, dreamlike, mysterious, intuitive. i cannot afford to mention every being, entity and every thing present in my research. they are way too many. i want to cite the underground library at rua general jardim n. 65 which welcomed me among its socialist architecture and urbanism books, and cleaning workers carrying the job perfectly. i want to mention how Ondas by Naná Vasconcelos give me goosebumps, enchantment, and a desire to live.

i want to cite the delicious vegan tonkatsu (rarely) served at the mensa for over 3€, and the responsible cooks. i want to clap to you strongly. i want to thank the beauty of a ferryboat crossing taking me to a low-key academic conference in a law faculty courtroom (?), where i presented as the judge in front of the other 5 panelists, and one external attendee only: my mom. she was so proud of me, and she liked my work. how cute. so many things, so many memories, so many songs, so many tastes, so many animals - people and others of course. i want to appreciate them and let all of them know about how they influence my selves. i don't think my work is indebted to all these references. i don't like the term debt in this case. it is about sensing and incorporating into my selves and my practices what affects me, the matter that matters. and keep sharing with them in return. reciprocity? maybe. i have no idea if the sharing goes in equal terms, though. there are infinite possibilities to respond to my research questions (what are them even?). i do not want to prove that the methods i use will work for someone else. i do not want to have to defend myself that way. what a horrible word, defense. reminds me of wars and all the neoliberal justificatives that we put up for “needing" more defense, leading us to spread more wars and genocides. again. i do not see my methods as replicable. they are idiosyncratic, hard to tell (as in, into words), uterine (unfortunately i have one), implicated, worried (maybe too much?), caring, soft, unapologetic, volatile, colourful, extra-sensitive, ambiguous, desiring, intuitive.

btw, have you listened to ambiguous desire by arlo parks already?