When it comes to the concepts and the contributors of the DICTIONARY
OF WAR who are supposed to create concepts it seems like the project
is based on a fundamental misreading and misunderstanding on purpose.

Obviously the "concept person" vaguely relates - according to the
general outlay of the project - to the term which in "What is
Philosophy" Deleuze and Guattari have coined as "conceptual persona".

The problem, or, i am tempted to say: the premise of our project is
that we have been slightly shifting the meaning of what Deleuze and
Guattari have called "conceptual persona" to what in the context of
the DICTIONARY OF WAR we call "concept persons", i.e. the persons who
are developing, producing, creating and presenting concepts.

The "conceptual personae" in the sense of Deleuze and Guattari are
precisely not the authors of a concept, they are not the philosophers
or theorist themselves who speak and may create concept.

The conceptual persona are figures of thought that give concepts their
specific force, their raison d'être; through them concepts are given
body.

Deleuze and Guattari argue that conceptual personae, while often only
implicit in philosophy, are decisive for understanding the
significance of concepts. They are "becoming", the power of the concept.

They are the "philosophers heteronyms", they are "nameless and
subterrean", but sometimes appear with a proper name: Most famous
conceptual personae are Platons Socrates or Nietzsche's Dionysos. But
there are many more like: Melville's Captain Arab or Bartleby, Kleist
Penthesilea or Prince of Homburg. Zarathustra, of course, or Don Juan.

"The conceptual persona is not the philosophers representative, but,
rather, the reverse: the philosopher is only the envelop of his
principal conceptual persona and of all the other personae who are the
intercessors (Fürsprecher/intercesseurs), the real subjects of his
philosophy."

So called "concept persons" who are invited to create a concept for
the "DICTIONARY OF WAR" are obviously different characters but they
may have some traits in common.

So far we have asked more than 150 persons to create a concept. Not
only theorists or philosophers, but a wide range of activists,
architects, artists, composers, choreographers, dancers, filmmakers,
generals, journalists, scientists, philosophers, theorists from across
the globe.

We are inviting these concept persons to create a concept, but we are
still trying to figure out what that could mean.

Generally speaking it is about creating new concepts that do not pre-
exist or revaluate existing ones. Concepts do not fall from heaven,
Concepts must be invented, created, produced; concepts refer to
problems without which they would be meaningless.. It is not about
definitions or limiting meaning, a smallest common denominator,
anecdotes or original opinions. It is rather about developing the
tools with which to attain new ideas or: as an attempt to establish a
sense of order to a fundamentally chaotic and forever changing world...

There are many different ways and different intensities how concept
persons are designing the process of creation: performing the
creation, reading or presenting what has been created, sketching out
what will be created. Some of them are constantly working on the
concepts and produce ever new versions; some have delivered one and
final version; some are translating the concept into different
formats, like from the live presentation to printed matter in a book
edition.

"We do not do something by saying it, but produce movement by thinking
it, through the intermediary of a conceptual persona."

The production of movement may actually characterize the link between
the conceptual persona and the concept person: In order to produce
movement, in order to put thinking into motion -- what a concept
person first of all needs is: freedom of movement.

At DICTIONARY OF WAR there are no restrictions with regard to format.
Each edition of DICTIONARY OF WAR is composed by a wide range and
variety of formats: lectures, choreographies, films, slide shows,
readings or whatever format the authors, actors, organisers or
"concept person" may choose.

And there have been many surprises like concept persons who refused to
do what was expected from them: dancers who are not dancing but
editing video, and theorists who are dancing a little ballett while
talking.

Some of them have in deed discovered and named conceptual personae who
give body to a concept: "Ashwatthama" by the Raqs media collective, or
"Hostis humanis generis" by Lawrence Liang [just to name two of them
who are connected with the exhibition here].

There is a vast variety of different ways in which concept persons
cope with the challenge; and the project DICTIONARY OF WAR is
precisely about this incommensurable, non-standardized, heretical
multiplicity of very singular approaches and attempts.

Altogether they may appear as a plane of immanence populated by
concept persons and their concepts. But how do we find those concept
persons?

There is no specific scheme for the recruitment of concept persons.

We find them in site specific contexts, we recognize them as experts
or as dilettantes on certain fields, we encounter them through others,
we find them among our friends and collaborators. They just might be
by chance at the same time at the same place, or we are trying to meet
and get in touch with them on purpose.

Sometimes we got critisized that this or that specialist on war has
not been invited and therefore the project is pointless since it does
not possess enough authority. Then I can only shrug my shoulders. It
does not matter at all. The DICTIONARY OF WAR is not looking for
authorities who pretend to possess a legitimation to identify, to
define and to determine; to fortify meaning and to fence in sense.

As developers, organizers and curators of the project we do not invite
concept persons for who they are or what they may represent. We are
not interested in scholars, professors and professionals, school
leaders and the keepers of a form of knowledge that constitutes only a
supposedly higher opinion.

We are inviting them to become concept persons and we are looking
forward to experience how they are opening up a potential for
thinking, for escaping the inflicted meaning of a word or term, and
creating a concept; we are hoping for a new generation of words which
may turn out as new weapons which might help us to believe in the
world, to believe in life.