The challenge of approaching Murobushi’s work is that it is deeply elusive. This means that, even after his death, his dance and the words with which he gives an account of it, should never be taken as concepts that have a definitive meaning. We have to think about his work from itself and in its terms, even if it has a dialogue with other philosophical and artistic elements. Indeed, it is easy to see that Murobushi establishes his own debate with artists and philosophers who were important to think about his work, but at the same time, Murobushi’s work is already a thinking event in its own right, and this implies that the dialogue with them thinkers and artists, it’s more an open debate, rather than just a thoughtless juxtaposition.

Sometimes I get the impression that, for some researchers, and dancers, it is easy to separate Murobushi’s dance from his words, however, this seems impossible, since both co-belong in an original experience of the body. Murobushi’s words do not try to explain his dance, but rather explore the path of a becoming that, as such, does not pretend to dominate its object, they point to an enigma rather than explain it. I think Murobushi is close to Heraclitus at this point, and his textuality moves in what he says, as well as in what he does not say. Murobushi’s work seems to me to be moving in an area of ​​indiscernibility, in a “betweenness” as he said, which demands that we move within the limits of habitual thought. This originative experience of the flesh, permanently challenges us to be in front of an ontological indeterminacy where it is possible to find ourselves with his dance and his words.

In my opinion, it is precisely in this indeterminacy, in this nomadism, in this zone of misplacement, as an originative place, that we can approach Murobushi’s work, from itself without falling into the traps of theoricism. It seems that something happens with Murobushi that resembles what happens when we try to approach any thinker of becoming; when we believe that we have fully understood them, when we manage to classify them once and for all, when we subject them to some univocal theoretical framework, then we betray their work.

El desafío que supone aproximarse a la obra de Murobushi es que es profundamente elusiva. Esto quiere decir que, incluso después de su muerte, su danza y las palabras con las que da cuenta de ella, jamás deben tomarse como conceptos que tienen una significación definitiva. Hay que pensar su obra desde sí misma y en sus términos, aunque tenga dialogo con otros elementos filosóficos y artísticos. Efectivamente, es fácil darse cuenta que Murobushi establece un debate propio con artistas y filósofos que eran importantes para pensar su obra, pero al mismo tiempo, la obra de Murobushi ya es un acontecimiento pensante por sí mismo, y esto supone que el dialogo con estos pensadores y artistas, es más un debate abierto, en lugar de ser solo una yuxtaposición irreflexiva.

A veces me da la impresión de que, para algunos investigadores, y bailarines, es fácil separar la danza de Murobushi de sus palabras, sin embargo, esto me parece imposible, toda vez que ambas se co-pertenecen en una experiencia originaria del cuerpo. Las palabras de Murobushi no intentan explicar su danza, sino que exploran el camino de un devenir que, como tal, no pretenden dominar su objeto, señalan un enigma mas que explicarlo. Por momentos Murobushi se acerca a Heráclito en este punto, pues su textualidad se mueve en lo que dice, tanto, como en lo que no dice. La obra de Murobushi me parece que se mueve en una zona de indiscernibilidad, en un “entre” como el decía, que demanda de nosotros movernos en los límites del pensamiento habitual. Y es que, esta experiencia originaria de la carne, nos interpela permanentemente a estar frente a una indeterminación ontológica en donde es posible encontrarnos con su danza y sus palabras.

A mi entender, es precisamente en esta indeterminación, en este nomadismo, en esta zona de extravío, como lugar originario, que podemos aproximarnos a la obra de Murobushi, desde sí misma sin caer en las trampas del teoricismo. Me parece que con Murobushi pasa algo que se asemeja a lo que sucede cuando intentamos acercarnos a cualquier pensador del devenir; cuando creemos que los hemos entendido totalmente, cuando logramos clasificarlos de una vez y para siempre, cuando los sometemos a algún marco teórico univoco, entonces traicionamos su obra.