I’m aware that most of my blogging process so far has mainly concerned inspirative research. My attempts at thoroughness have been fairly time-consuming and despite this, I’ve still been struggling to arrive at a singular topic. The central themes are there, namely extended identification, acoustic ecology, non-duality and indigenous practices, and the connection between these is growing in apparence. Yet I cant help but feel I’m spreading my energy too thin. Arriving at a specific point in which all my research converges in a tangible way is proving harder than I expected.
I’m currently reading ‘Sounds, Wild & Broken’ by the biologist and writer David George Haskell to help frame what I’ve learnt reading the Ecology Of Wisdom within a sonic context. Haskell’s examination of the diversity of aural experience is wonderfully descriptive. At the start of every chapter, he waxes lyrical on the sounds he is immersed in and it has inspired me to potentially start my aural paper similarly. Taking into account the idea of interdependence of experiential subjectivity and concrete contents, a Geertzian thick description of my aural surroundings seems appropriate as a way of demonstrating the role I play in the soundscape. Experience is always contextual. There is no escaping our perceptions, as the cilia that line our ear canals, the pinnae, or ear trumpets as Haskell describes, and a myriad of other evolutionary hand me downs all bias our sensory experience (Haskell, D, …)
Does an increasing awareness of these inherent biases suggest that non-human beings have inherent value? How is this conducive to a widened sense of self? If Naess argues that changing our conception of the world is necessary for collective self-realisation, is this where I should start? This blogging exercise has made my intentions a little clearer, but I feel as if the scope of my undertakings are still too broad.