Friday, May 29, 2009
Wednesday, March 18, 2009
Tuesday, March 17, 2009
Essay: Others
Others:
This post relies heavily on my previous blogs, so apologies in advance for the extra reading. As far as terminology, I feel that “the Other” and the “Primal State” are nearly the same thing, and they are opposed by “the Word”. I suspect that the “Other” that I describe is not the entire intended concept of the “Other” that Baudrillard and Guillaume intend to convey. Rather, it is my view based on their ideas in Radical Alterity.
I am not sure that I understand the full meaning of the Other in the true meaning that Baudrillard and Guillaume intended, but I did gather some ideas from their text. Through blogging and in class, I have formulated some ideas about the Other that have been based on ideas found in Radical Alterity.
Strangely enough, one of my favorite and more whacky ideas about the Other was inspired by The Ticket. A short scene in The Ticket describes the ingrained sub-vocal speech that humans are all subjected to. Humans are the undeniable victors of the food chain, and they are the only being to possess the “Word.” Coincidence? The “Word” has its benefits, I think that it gives us our civilization, our laws, our control, and our dominance. But all of this comes at a price. As I discuss in my blog, humans seem overwhelmed by this inner Word and occasionally seek to escape it. I think that radical endeavors such as music, sports, art, porn, etc. are all appealing because they allow us to release from the Word. All of these activities serve to allow us to enter an altered state of mind, where the primal being takes over the “word” being that society and civilization has implemented in humans. If you ask an artist, musician, kayaker, drug addict, or a pornographer what drives them to do what they do, I don’t think they can provide you with a full answer. This is exactly the point, the answer is that there is no answer. These activities are enjoyable to many, but when you ask why you draw a big empty blank. This, to me, is pursuit of the Other.
This is where John Cage’s interview from class comes into play so heavily. To him, he desires sounds for their simple being, not for the stories they may tell. He desires silence, and above all else, inner silence. Inner silence is his escape from the Word.
Cage describes Kant’s theory that two things require no explanation in order to derive pleasure from them: music and laughter. I feel that this statement strongly agrees with what I’m saying here, but I would not limit it only to those two activities.
Another quote from The Ticket, “Well time is getting dressed and undressed eating sleeping not the actions but the words… what we say about what we do. Would there be any time if we didn’t say anything?” This quote inspired ideas I blogged about that I would like to expand upon. I think they apply to humans in childhood. Can you remember anything from when you were a child and couldn’t talk? I certainly can’t. Yet I would like to (and Freud agrees with this desire). Perhaps this means that time or space was altered by our lack of the Word.
I think this is possibly the state that animals are in. In his interview, Cage makes a silly comment to his cat, implying that his cat already knows that pleasure need not have a meaning. I believe that this is correct, the cat knows this because it is in a Primal State. Humans have sacrificed their inner knowledge found in the Primal State in order to achieve dominance of the food chain. Now, greedy as we are, we want both. So, we turn to activities that induce the Primal State for a taste of our former comprehension. But you can’t have your cake, and eat it too. In our society those people who are closest to the primal state are the outcasts. Civilization was made to combat primitiveness, and so civilization will not tolerate those with primitive tendencies. Thus, as Freud describes in Civilization and Its Discontents, humans are doomed to unhappiness because of a conflict between the two.
Baudrillard and Guillame say that the Other is found in anonymity. Civilization has robbed us of our primal anonymity, and we want it back. So again, we turn to activities that give us anonymity, but civilization is based on social interaction, the opposite of anonymity. Again, we are given a dilemma. The cycle perpetuates itself, and Freud’s ideas ring true. So, in my mind, pursuit of the Other is rebellion against civilization.
This post relies heavily on my previous blogs, so apologies in advance for the extra reading. As far as terminology, I feel that “the Other” and the “Primal State” are nearly the same thing, and they are opposed by “the Word”. I suspect that the “Other” that I describe is not the entire intended concept of the “Other” that Baudrillard and Guillaume intend to convey. Rather, it is my view based on their ideas in Radical Alterity.
I am not sure that I understand the full meaning of the Other in the true meaning that Baudrillard and Guillaume intended, but I did gather some ideas from their text. Through blogging and in class, I have formulated some ideas about the Other that have been based on ideas found in Radical Alterity.
Strangely enough, one of my favorite and more whacky ideas about the Other was inspired by The Ticket. A short scene in The Ticket describes the ingrained sub-vocal speech that humans are all subjected to. Humans are the undeniable victors of the food chain, and they are the only being to possess the “Word.” Coincidence? The “Word” has its benefits, I think that it gives us our civilization, our laws, our control, and our dominance. But all of this comes at a price. As I discuss in my blog, humans seem overwhelmed by this inner Word and occasionally seek to escape it. I think that radical endeavors such as music, sports, art, porn, etc. are all appealing because they allow us to release from the Word. All of these activities serve to allow us to enter an altered state of mind, where the primal being takes over the “word” being that society and civilization has implemented in humans. If you ask an artist, musician, kayaker, drug addict, or a pornographer what drives them to do what they do, I don’t think they can provide you with a full answer. This is exactly the point, the answer is that there is no answer. These activities are enjoyable to many, but when you ask why you draw a big empty blank. This, to me, is pursuit of the Other.
This is where John Cage’s interview from class comes into play so heavily. To him, he desires sounds for their simple being, not for the stories they may tell. He desires silence, and above all else, inner silence. Inner silence is his escape from the Word.
Cage describes Kant’s theory that two things require no explanation in order to derive pleasure from them: music and laughter. I feel that this statement strongly agrees with what I’m saying here, but I would not limit it only to those two activities.
Another quote from The Ticket, “Well time is getting dressed and undressed eating sleeping not the actions but the words… what we say about what we do. Would there be any time if we didn’t say anything?” This quote inspired ideas I blogged about that I would like to expand upon. I think they apply to humans in childhood. Can you remember anything from when you were a child and couldn’t talk? I certainly can’t. Yet I would like to (and Freud agrees with this desire). Perhaps this means that time or space was altered by our lack of the Word.
I think this is possibly the state that animals are in. In his interview, Cage makes a silly comment to his cat, implying that his cat already knows that pleasure need not have a meaning. I believe that this is correct, the cat knows this because it is in a Primal State. Humans have sacrificed their inner knowledge found in the Primal State in order to achieve dominance of the food chain. Now, greedy as we are, we want both. So, we turn to activities that induce the Primal State for a taste of our former comprehension. But you can’t have your cake, and eat it too. In our society those people who are closest to the primal state are the outcasts. Civilization was made to combat primitiveness, and so civilization will not tolerate those with primitive tendencies. Thus, as Freud describes in Civilization and Its Discontents, humans are doomed to unhappiness because of a conflict between the two.
Baudrillard and Guillame say that the Other is found in anonymity. Civilization has robbed us of our primal anonymity, and we want it back. So again, we turn to activities that give us anonymity, but civilization is based on social interaction, the opposite of anonymity. Again, we are given a dilemma. The cycle perpetuates itself, and Freud’s ideas ring true. So, in my mind, pursuit of the Other is rebellion against civilization.
Essay: Book Groups
Book Groups:
I think that the discussions we held in our book groups were similar to the discussions in class, but not quite as in depth. The whole time, I got the feeling that everyone was just giving their three posts for the grade and then leaving. With that said, I feel that some of the posts within those three were inspiring original thoughts.
The book we read, Dust, was great. I feel that this book involved many of the concepts covered in the class. Nanobots (of course) were a big part of the book. Alterity existed somewhat in the Angels and the dead souls contained in fruits. Gender issues were covered, but nothing like The Ticket or The Filth. The concept of the small also appeared in a way at the end, when Rien sacrifices herself. A fellow book group-er points out that by giving herself to the small, Rien is really getting bigger. In my mind this is one of the bigger themes of the class, that smaller is actually larger, and I think that carried over well into the discussion board.
As compared to blogging, the discussion board added much more structure and inspiration to my ideas. I loved having feedback on my ideas, as people tended to agree, disagree, or elaborate on the thoughts I gave. This can occur in a similar form with blogging, but no one really took the initiative to comment on another’s blog. I wish I had done so. However, blogging has its own form. While writing a blog, I often just “put the pen to the paper” and let out a semi-coherent stream of consciousness that discusses a particular subject. As opposed to rigorous academic writing, I almost never revised my blog postings, but left them as they originally were created. On the discussion board however, my ideas came out in one coherent statement at a time. They tended to remain concise, and did not ramble as my blogs did. Then, my ideas would receive feedback as I gave feedback to those posted before mine. Whereas a blog is one single stream of consciousness, I really liked the arguments contained in the book group.
Some ideas for book groups in the next nanotext class: I think it would be great to include peer feedback in blogs. Perhaps it could be a requirement for each student to reply to several blogs each week. This could also keep the blogging schedule a little more synchronized. Also, as for the discussion board, Blackboard sucks. It’s a pain in the ass, sometimes it would crash or not let me login. I think there are better forum templates to use that achieve the same objective. Also, it would be great for the book groups to meet more than we did. Our meeting was really unanticipated, and as a result we didn’t really discuss the issues as well as we could have. Mostly, our group discussed the grading system instead of involving the text. Perhaps each book group could schedule three or so meetings throughout the class (and make sure everyone knows when in advance)?
Overall, the book groups did great for the maiden voyage of the class. I think that book selection was excellent and pertinent to the class, and that the book group ran smoothly.
I think that the discussions we held in our book groups were similar to the discussions in class, but not quite as in depth. The whole time, I got the feeling that everyone was just giving their three posts for the grade and then leaving. With that said, I feel that some of the posts within those three were inspiring original thoughts.
The book we read, Dust, was great. I feel that this book involved many of the concepts covered in the class. Nanobots (of course) were a big part of the book. Alterity existed somewhat in the Angels and the dead souls contained in fruits. Gender issues were covered, but nothing like The Ticket or The Filth. The concept of the small also appeared in a way at the end, when Rien sacrifices herself. A fellow book group-er points out that by giving herself to the small, Rien is really getting bigger. In my mind this is one of the bigger themes of the class, that smaller is actually larger, and I think that carried over well into the discussion board.
As compared to blogging, the discussion board added much more structure and inspiration to my ideas. I loved having feedback on my ideas, as people tended to agree, disagree, or elaborate on the thoughts I gave. This can occur in a similar form with blogging, but no one really took the initiative to comment on another’s blog. I wish I had done so. However, blogging has its own form. While writing a blog, I often just “put the pen to the paper” and let out a semi-coherent stream of consciousness that discusses a particular subject. As opposed to rigorous academic writing, I almost never revised my blog postings, but left them as they originally were created. On the discussion board however, my ideas came out in one coherent statement at a time. They tended to remain concise, and did not ramble as my blogs did. Then, my ideas would receive feedback as I gave feedback to those posted before mine. Whereas a blog is one single stream of consciousness, I really liked the arguments contained in the book group.
Some ideas for book groups in the next nanotext class: I think it would be great to include peer feedback in blogs. Perhaps it could be a requirement for each student to reply to several blogs each week. This could also keep the blogging schedule a little more synchronized. Also, as for the discussion board, Blackboard sucks. It’s a pain in the ass, sometimes it would crash or not let me login. I think there are better forum templates to use that achieve the same objective. Also, it would be great for the book groups to meet more than we did. Our meeting was really unanticipated, and as a result we didn’t really discuss the issues as well as we could have. Mostly, our group discussed the grading system instead of involving the text. Perhaps each book group could schedule three or so meetings throughout the class (and make sure everyone knows when in advance)?
Overall, the book groups did great for the maiden voyage of the class. I think that book selection was excellent and pertinent to the class, and that the book group ran smoothly.
Essay: Filth
My first reaction to The Ticket I think I shared with the general sentiments of the class. In the first day of reading, I felt that the content was disgusting. However, I strongly felt that the nonsense and the nastiness were all part of the writer’s strategy, and would fall into place soon. By the middle and end of the book, I lost hope of holding out for a grand explanation of the offensive content. As we discussed in class, I got the feeling that the book was made to slap the reader in the face, and it did a damned good job at that. However, I did find some very meaningful ideas hidden in several places of the book.
I think that my reaction and the reaction of the class to The Ticket and Filth have a lot to do with Freudian psychology. I think that these writings appeal to the socially unacceptable urges of our Id. The content of The Ticket and Filth also appeal to our sex and death drives. The Superego sees the response of our Id to the stimuli presented in these books, and tries to censor the Id. In class, our blogs, and plurk, most of the students spoke out against the content of these two books. Perhaps this means that we feel that it would be socially unacceptable to tolerate the ideas presented in the two books, so we choose to protect our social status by using Freud’s defense mechanism of Reaction Formation. In class, a student asked a critical question along these lines. “What if I find myself aroused by some content in The Ticket? What does that say about me?” I was glad this student had the courage to say that, as I feel that many of us likely had that thought but were not about to tell anybody.
Why does pornography work? I think that one of the driving factors is the anonymity of the porn consumer. They have no intimate relationship to deal with, no emotional investment in their sexual partner(s). With their anonymity, they can release the Other and let it satisfy its sexual desires (see my blog on the Id and the Other). Within reason, I think that releasing the Other isn’t necessarily a bad thing. I think the problems arise when people lose control and let porn become an addiction, or they lose the boundary between pornographic fantasyland and real life.
After reading The Ticket, I feel desensitized. The Filth did not shock me as much as it would have had I not read Burroughs. Anal rape? That’s old news. I feel like I would need something even more vulgar to disgust me. I think that the same desensitizing cycle applies to pornography, as discussed by Edward Marriot (http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2003/nov/08/gender.weekend7). At first, one is turned on by viewing straight sex in its most normal forms. However, after a while, the standard material doesn’t incur the desired effect on the viewer. They turn to more hardcore material to get the reaction they want. I get the feeling (and Edward Marriot seems to agree) that what porn consumers want most is to break the rules. This may be why red states have higher porn consumption than blue states, and why hardcore porn and even more offensive material like bestiality is in high demand.
Another reason that I was not offended by The Filth as much as The Ticket is that I was easily able to find meaning in The Filth. I found that The Filth really got me thinking about I-Life and other dimensions. These involved thoughts plus a coherent plot allowed me to largely ignore a lot of the graphicness and explore the deeper meanings. The Ticket, on the other hand, is much less coherent and it was really had for me to get much out of it. I strongly think that if Burroughs had made the deeper meanings in the text more obvious, I would have had a much easier time disregarding the nastiness. In fact, I encountered one great notion in The Ticket that was contained in only a page or two. I wrote two blog updates that were centered on language in the mind, and how it is unavoidable. Finding this great idea hidden in the muck, I was more than willing to accept the offensive content if I could have this one diamond in the rough. But like I said, that idea lasted only a page or so, and I didn’t find anything as great in the rest of the book. I think that this was Burroughs’ point of the book, to create a book that was a hell of a lot more rough than diamond. I don’t feel that his ideas on words were the biggest idea he hid in the book, but it is the idea that resonated the most with me.
I think that my reaction and the reaction of the class to The Ticket and Filth have a lot to do with Freudian psychology. I think that these writings appeal to the socially unacceptable urges of our Id. The content of The Ticket and Filth also appeal to our sex and death drives. The Superego sees the response of our Id to the stimuli presented in these books, and tries to censor the Id. In class, our blogs, and plurk, most of the students spoke out against the content of these two books. Perhaps this means that we feel that it would be socially unacceptable to tolerate the ideas presented in the two books, so we choose to protect our social status by using Freud’s defense mechanism of Reaction Formation. In class, a student asked a critical question along these lines. “What if I find myself aroused by some content in The Ticket? What does that say about me?” I was glad this student had the courage to say that, as I feel that many of us likely had that thought but were not about to tell anybody.
Why does pornography work? I think that one of the driving factors is the anonymity of the porn consumer. They have no intimate relationship to deal with, no emotional investment in their sexual partner(s). With their anonymity, they can release the Other and let it satisfy its sexual desires (see my blog on the Id and the Other). Within reason, I think that releasing the Other isn’t necessarily a bad thing. I think the problems arise when people lose control and let porn become an addiction, or they lose the boundary between pornographic fantasyland and real life.
After reading The Ticket, I feel desensitized. The Filth did not shock me as much as it would have had I not read Burroughs. Anal rape? That’s old news. I feel like I would need something even more vulgar to disgust me. I think that the same desensitizing cycle applies to pornography, as discussed by Edward Marriot (http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2003/nov/08/gender.weekend7). At first, one is turned on by viewing straight sex in its most normal forms. However, after a while, the standard material doesn’t incur the desired effect on the viewer. They turn to more hardcore material to get the reaction they want. I get the feeling (and Edward Marriot seems to agree) that what porn consumers want most is to break the rules. This may be why red states have higher porn consumption than blue states, and why hardcore porn and even more offensive material like bestiality is in high demand.
Another reason that I was not offended by The Filth as much as The Ticket is that I was easily able to find meaning in The Filth. I found that The Filth really got me thinking about I-Life and other dimensions. These involved thoughts plus a coherent plot allowed me to largely ignore a lot of the graphicness and explore the deeper meanings. The Ticket, on the other hand, is much less coherent and it was really had for me to get much out of it. I strongly think that if Burroughs had made the deeper meanings in the text more obvious, I would have had a much easier time disregarding the nastiness. In fact, I encountered one great notion in The Ticket that was contained in only a page or two. I wrote two blog updates that were centered on language in the mind, and how it is unavoidable. Finding this great idea hidden in the muck, I was more than willing to accept the offensive content if I could have this one diamond in the rough. But like I said, that idea lasted only a page or so, and I didn’t find anything as great in the rest of the book. I think that this was Burroughs’ point of the book, to create a book that was a hell of a lot more rough than diamond. I don’t feel that his ideas on words were the biggest idea he hid in the book, but it is the idea that resonated the most with me.
Essay: Animals and Machines
One overlying theme in Life Extreme is change. Through quotes, Kac and Ronell seem to state that nothing is permanent, and everything is bound to change. Applied to animals and genetics, the authors seem to state that we cannot simply ignore the issues of genetic hybridization. However, it is not immediately apparent which stance the authors take on the issue. I think that their primary tactic is to educate the reader about what the hell is going on in the world of scientifically induced evolution. For me, this is exactly what I needed to know. I had no clue that a lot of this was going on. I won’t say that I’m opposed to it, but I feel like I don’t really know anything about the current state of genetic science.
The authors often seemed to choose examples of small scientific victories. However I think that the examples they chose are ones that one day may have huge implications. Many of the experiments outlined in Life Extreme seem to be the kind that open doors for scientists to better manipulate the natural world. The image of the mouse with an ear on its back comes to mind. Even though the ear can’t hear yet, it demonstrates that mice are capable of housing human organs. This discovery doesn’t actually do anything yet, but the future implications could be immense.
The fat naked chickens in Life Extreme are an example of an advance in science that has immediate applications. These chickens are ripe for the plunder, defenseless and vulnerable. The manipulation of these animals for our benefit raises the ethical question: should humans be allowed to use animals as machines for their benefit? Humans are undeniably at the top of the food chain, but we are not gods. Is this too much?
While blogging about Leotard’s Postmodern Fable, I discussed the possibility that life is just a complex form of organizing energy*. If this were true, are life forms machines? Webster’s dictionary defines a machine as: Any combination of parts for utilizing, modifying, applying, or transmitting energy, performing a specific function, etc. Wait a sec, transmitting energy? That’s what I blogged about. So if animal and plant life is “designed” to transmit energy, that makes them machines right? It could make sense. Let’s say that someone or something is tasked to create an energy cycle that creates, manipulates, and stores energy. Their cycle must be self-reliant, and it must last for as long as possible. With this imaginary scenario, one potential solution is animal and plant life. With inputs of just sunlight and basic minerals, animals and plants create a life cycle based on energy. Thus, they have potential to be considered machines.
In Life Extreme, Kac and Ronell declare that the rules of the game are changing. The genetic experiments in the book demonstrate that animals, like any machines, can be redesigned. Up until the last 400 years, humans have had no intentional impact on the genetics and structure of animals and plants, and only until the last fifty years have these changes become significant. With science, humans have become able to redesign the genetics of animals and change them to suit our purposes. We have begun to figure out the code of the machines, and assume the role of designers. However, here is where we run into ethical problems.
Humans must ask themselves a critical question: are animals our machines? If animals are machines they must have been created by someone or something. Nobody knows who made these machines, but it is apparent that humans did not. For this reason, I suggest that we should be very cautious while experimenting with genetic alterations.
*http://writingsmallthinkingbig.blogspot.com/2009/01/energy-and-otherness.html#comments
The authors often seemed to choose examples of small scientific victories. However I think that the examples they chose are ones that one day may have huge implications. Many of the experiments outlined in Life Extreme seem to be the kind that open doors for scientists to better manipulate the natural world. The image of the mouse with an ear on its back comes to mind. Even though the ear can’t hear yet, it demonstrates that mice are capable of housing human organs. This discovery doesn’t actually do anything yet, but the future implications could be immense.
The fat naked chickens in Life Extreme are an example of an advance in science that has immediate applications. These chickens are ripe for the plunder, defenseless and vulnerable. The manipulation of these animals for our benefit raises the ethical question: should humans be allowed to use animals as machines for their benefit? Humans are undeniably at the top of the food chain, but we are not gods. Is this too much?
While blogging about Leotard’s Postmodern Fable, I discussed the possibility that life is just a complex form of organizing energy*. If this were true, are life forms machines? Webster’s dictionary defines a machine as: Any combination of parts for utilizing, modifying, applying, or transmitting energy, performing a specific function, etc. Wait a sec, transmitting energy? That’s what I blogged about. So if animal and plant life is “designed” to transmit energy, that makes them machines right? It could make sense. Let’s say that someone or something is tasked to create an energy cycle that creates, manipulates, and stores energy. Their cycle must be self-reliant, and it must last for as long as possible. With this imaginary scenario, one potential solution is animal and plant life. With inputs of just sunlight and basic minerals, animals and plants create a life cycle based on energy. Thus, they have potential to be considered machines.
In Life Extreme, Kac and Ronell declare that the rules of the game are changing. The genetic experiments in the book demonstrate that animals, like any machines, can be redesigned. Up until the last 400 years, humans have had no intentional impact on the genetics and structure of animals and plants, and only until the last fifty years have these changes become significant. With science, humans have become able to redesign the genetics of animals and change them to suit our purposes. We have begun to figure out the code of the machines, and assume the role of designers. However, here is where we run into ethical problems.
Humans must ask themselves a critical question: are animals our machines? If animals are machines they must have been created by someone or something. Nobody knows who made these machines, but it is apparent that humans did not. For this reason, I suggest that we should be very cautious while experimenting with genetic alterations.
*http://writingsmallthinkingbig.blogspot.com/2009/01/energy-and-otherness.html#comments
Essay: Comparing Blogs
To compare blogs, I randomly selected a blog from the list on Nanotext’s page. I chose Claire Marie’s blog, “How Small?” Claire and I have never met, and exchanged maybe twenty words in the course of the class. Upon reading her blog, I have found several ideas that tie into the concepts I chose to explore in my own blog “Writing Small, Thinking Big.” Ideas we shared were: life as an art form, initial disgust to TTTE, and words and their powers.
Claire proposes several ideas on the topic of art. One idea is that art will be the downfall of the human race. She elucidates that humans are always trying to push their limits of art, and one day someone will push the limit too far and the human race will suffer. Claire uses Jeff Luty as an example. Luty pushed the technological advance of his nants purely for the art of his creation. I think that Claire’s ideas really tied into my ideas about art. I used an example of a whitewater kayaker, and said that by paddling off of a treacherous waterfall the kayaker was creating art. My reasoning was that art is based on emotion and at that moment the kayaker is feeling extreme emotions, and art can be found by association of the viewer with his emotions. I think that my example of the kayaker fits with Claire’s views on art. He is pushing his limits; he wants to see how big he can go before the power of nature smacks him down. Claire describes this idea as a power trip; the kayaker likes to feel in control of nature by demonstrating his ability to go where no man has gone before. By constantly pushing the limits, these artists doom themselves to fail. If the kayaker persists in his habit of waterfall diving, one day he is bound to find out that a waterfall is too shallow and crack his skull. If Luty succeeds in creating the perfect nants, he will effectively destroy the world. However, I described an example where an art form taken to its limit does not cause the downfall of humanity. In the Filth, there rages a fierce battle between two sides over control of the I-life. If Hughes’ buyer Simon wins, he will corrupt the I-Life into perverted evil forms. But instead, I-life is saved by Greg feely, and they evolve into kind smart symbionts that benefit humans (as they were originally designed to do). I feel that this form of art, when taken to its limits, will not cause the destruction of humans.
Claire and I both discussed the power of words and language. However, we took fairly different approaches to the similar ideas. Claire focused on the power that is held in a single word, proclaiming that this power is infinite because of the infinite meanings it holds to different people. Thus, one single word holds as much power as a single orphid connected to the infinite possibilities of the orphidnet. In my blogging, I came up with the concept of “the word” as I found it in The Ticket. I explored the possibility that language was a curse, because we cannot rid ourselves of language no matter how hard we try. I think that my ideas are based on a logic that is similar to hers; we cannot rid ourselves of words because they are interconnected with our thoughts so much that they are inseparable.
Reading through other peoples blogs, I came upon Claire’s thoughts on the Urb from Ribofunk. I really liked her thoughts that the Urb is a god-like being. In one of my blogs, I referenced Claire’s ideas and agreed with them. I thought that this was the best story in Ribofunk, and I was glad to see that someone else had the same reaction as I did.
As far as our different styles of blogging, I feel that we both included snippets of our personal feelings into our blogs. Claire often explores how she would react if she were put into situations similar to the ones in the texts. From her blogs, the reader can get a sense of her mentality and attitude. I feel that I included less of my personal thoughts in my blog, or at least disguised them a little. I found that while blogging, I liked to explore the mental states of those in an altered (not chemically) state of mind, such as a kayaker or someone listening to music. I think I chose these examples because in my free time I enjoy such activities, kayaking off of waterfalls and such. So the examples I chose were not me directly, but rather an illustration of how I view myself.
I enjoyed reading Claire’s blog and gaining perspectives that I had never thought of. I am glad that we explored several similar ideas in our blogs. I think I would love it if all of my classes used blogs, as it is great to see what other people are thinking beyond what they say in class. Alas, student privacy and plagiarism codes will prevail, and I think this opportunity is fairly rare in a college class.
Claire proposes several ideas on the topic of art. One idea is that art will be the downfall of the human race. She elucidates that humans are always trying to push their limits of art, and one day someone will push the limit too far and the human race will suffer. Claire uses Jeff Luty as an example. Luty pushed the technological advance of his nants purely for the art of his creation. I think that Claire’s ideas really tied into my ideas about art. I used an example of a whitewater kayaker, and said that by paddling off of a treacherous waterfall the kayaker was creating art. My reasoning was that art is based on emotion and at that moment the kayaker is feeling extreme emotions, and art can be found by association of the viewer with his emotions. I think that my example of the kayaker fits with Claire’s views on art. He is pushing his limits; he wants to see how big he can go before the power of nature smacks him down. Claire describes this idea as a power trip; the kayaker likes to feel in control of nature by demonstrating his ability to go where no man has gone before. By constantly pushing the limits, these artists doom themselves to fail. If the kayaker persists in his habit of waterfall diving, one day he is bound to find out that a waterfall is too shallow and crack his skull. If Luty succeeds in creating the perfect nants, he will effectively destroy the world. However, I described an example where an art form taken to its limit does not cause the downfall of humanity. In the Filth, there rages a fierce battle between two sides over control of the I-life. If Hughes’ buyer Simon wins, he will corrupt the I-Life into perverted evil forms. But instead, I-life is saved by Greg feely, and they evolve into kind smart symbionts that benefit humans (as they were originally designed to do). I feel that this form of art, when taken to its limits, will not cause the destruction of humans.
Claire and I both discussed the power of words and language. However, we took fairly different approaches to the similar ideas. Claire focused on the power that is held in a single word, proclaiming that this power is infinite because of the infinite meanings it holds to different people. Thus, one single word holds as much power as a single orphid connected to the infinite possibilities of the orphidnet. In my blogging, I came up with the concept of “the word” as I found it in The Ticket. I explored the possibility that language was a curse, because we cannot rid ourselves of language no matter how hard we try. I think that my ideas are based on a logic that is similar to hers; we cannot rid ourselves of words because they are interconnected with our thoughts so much that they are inseparable.
Reading through other peoples blogs, I came upon Claire’s thoughts on the Urb from Ribofunk. I really liked her thoughts that the Urb is a god-like being. In one of my blogs, I referenced Claire’s ideas and agreed with them. I thought that this was the best story in Ribofunk, and I was glad to see that someone else had the same reaction as I did.
As far as our different styles of blogging, I feel that we both included snippets of our personal feelings into our blogs. Claire often explores how she would react if she were put into situations similar to the ones in the texts. From her blogs, the reader can get a sense of her mentality and attitude. I feel that I included less of my personal thoughts in my blog, or at least disguised them a little. I found that while blogging, I liked to explore the mental states of those in an altered (not chemically) state of mind, such as a kayaker or someone listening to music. I think I chose these examples because in my free time I enjoy such activities, kayaking off of waterfalls and such. So the examples I chose were not me directly, but rather an illustration of how I view myself.
I enjoyed reading Claire’s blog and gaining perspectives that I had never thought of. I am glad that we explored several similar ideas in our blogs. I think I would love it if all of my classes used blogs, as it is great to see what other people are thinking beyond what they say in class. Alas, student privacy and plagiarism codes will prevail, and I think this opportunity is fairly rare in a college class.
Monday, March 9, 2009
Accelerated Evolution
I really like the concept of a gigantic intergalactic Noah’s Ark. It’s like Titan AE. That’s kind of how I envision Jacob’s Ladder in the book. One big difference is that Jacob’s Ladder is designed to perpetuate evolution. Apparently the ship was designed to evolve gods as it travelled to colonize interstellar worlds. This strikes me as a radical notion. I wonder how the morals of society today would take this. It seems that the “builders” just provided the tools for accelerated evolution and then set it loose. I don’t get the feeling that they designed the exalts the way they are now.
The colonies in the book are pretty cool. I’m not sure I fully understand how the work, but they seem to turn the means into exalt superhumans. The characters often refer to “their colony” but they are never named or anything. However they “ask their colony” or “their colony told them”. Kinda like a kickass conscience. I liked Rien’s description of being exalted. It seems that the changes in levels of consciousness are a theme in the book. Rien gets exalted, Percival combines intelligence with an angel, and the resurrectees are given the memories of dead souls. Also, Hero Ng is ingrained into Rien’s consciousness. I wonder if Bear is trying to make a statement about technology here, that it will someday become a part of us (as if it weren’t already). I find parallels here between Dust and Postsingular. When Percival became ingrained into Dust, her newfound consciousness reminded me of the Orphidnet. She can see herself from new points of view, and think on multiple levels with expanded intelligence. This advancement radically changes the style of fighting, in the beginning of the book they experience traditional combat (or so we are told), and at the end they are fighting angel-to-angel. The unblades adapt to this change in the fighting. They originally are used as blades that are especially deadly and prevent healing. However, by the end of the novel, the unblades are used more as programs to combat the angels. Just like the virus dogs in Postsingular, the swords lose much of their physical and literal uses and fight in a virtual sense.
Postsingular also takes the reader to many different planes of consciousness. Within the span of a few paragraphs, the reader has been in real life, the orphidnet, and to the accelerated learning state of the Big Pig. It’s strange to find that getting high on knowledge is portrayed as a bad thing. I feel that society today emphasizes that people can get their kicks out of being productive and learning things, but in Postsingular, this is shown as an addiction. I think that in a sense, druggies are really seeking knowledge by expansion of the mind, and the Big Pig seems to be that in a nutshell. That’s what makes it so addicting. I liked what one blogger (nlacount) said about technology becoming an addiction. It is, if you don’t keep up with the technology, you cannot function in society. I think that a few people in this class had never blogged before. Now they have no choice, they either blog and plurk or fail the course. It’s kill or be killed. I think that technology is our forced evolution. We are constantly designing gadgets that make our lives more quick, easy, and accessible. Our capabilities are evolving at an exponential rate. I think that this is a major tie between Dust and Postsingular. Dust introduces the concept of forced evolution through technology, and Postsingular shows its results. In my mind, that’s what the Nano is all about. Four thousand years ago, humans build pyramids. A hundred years ago, we build cars. Fifty years ago, we went to the moon. Twenty years ago we connected the world with the Internet. What does the future hold?
The colonies in the book are pretty cool. I’m not sure I fully understand how the work, but they seem to turn the means into exalt superhumans. The characters often refer to “their colony” but they are never named or anything. However they “ask their colony” or “their colony told them”. Kinda like a kickass conscience. I liked Rien’s description of being exalted. It seems that the changes in levels of consciousness are a theme in the book. Rien gets exalted, Percival combines intelligence with an angel, and the resurrectees are given the memories of dead souls. Also, Hero Ng is ingrained into Rien’s consciousness. I wonder if Bear is trying to make a statement about technology here, that it will someday become a part of us (as if it weren’t already). I find parallels here between Dust and Postsingular. When Percival became ingrained into Dust, her newfound consciousness reminded me of the Orphidnet. She can see herself from new points of view, and think on multiple levels with expanded intelligence. This advancement radically changes the style of fighting, in the beginning of the book they experience traditional combat (or so we are told), and at the end they are fighting angel-to-angel. The unblades adapt to this change in the fighting. They originally are used as blades that are especially deadly and prevent healing. However, by the end of the novel, the unblades are used more as programs to combat the angels. Just like the virus dogs in Postsingular, the swords lose much of their physical and literal uses and fight in a virtual sense.
Postsingular also takes the reader to many different planes of consciousness. Within the span of a few paragraphs, the reader has been in real life, the orphidnet, and to the accelerated learning state of the Big Pig. It’s strange to find that getting high on knowledge is portrayed as a bad thing. I feel that society today emphasizes that people can get their kicks out of being productive and learning things, but in Postsingular, this is shown as an addiction. I think that in a sense, druggies are really seeking knowledge by expansion of the mind, and the Big Pig seems to be that in a nutshell. That’s what makes it so addicting. I liked what one blogger (nlacount) said about technology becoming an addiction. It is, if you don’t keep up with the technology, you cannot function in society. I think that a few people in this class had never blogged before. Now they have no choice, they either blog and plurk or fail the course. It’s kill or be killed. I think that technology is our forced evolution. We are constantly designing gadgets that make our lives more quick, easy, and accessible. Our capabilities are evolving at an exponential rate. I think that this is a major tie between Dust and Postsingular. Dust introduces the concept of forced evolution through technology, and Postsingular shows its results. In my mind, that’s what the Nano is all about. Four thousand years ago, humans build pyramids. A hundred years ago, we build cars. Fifty years ago, we went to the moon. Twenty years ago we connected the world with the Internet. What does the future hold?
Thursday, February 26, 2009
Bloggadogging
I-life and Robots
I think the best part of the Filth was the I-life. “Only humans could make something kinder and better than themselves that makes them smarter than God in my opinion.” I really like this line from Greg that comes in the last few pages. Not even God was willing or able to design a superior creature. The I-life evolves itself so that it may better assist humans. I-life is the ideal nano-bot. Is it possible for us to design something like it? We watched videos in class about robots that teach themselves to walk. It seems that this is the type of programming that I-life uses, where it evolves itself. So can this be considered life? What defines life? Webster’s has several definitions as following: “…characterized by metabolism, growth, and reproduction… Any conscious and intelligent existence. …the period of animate existence from birth until death.” So by these definitions, I-life would meet the qualifications of living, while the walking robots would meet only one (animate existence). How hard would it be to give it the other qualifications? Intelligence is easy, calculators and computers have that. Consciousness would be harder to program into a machine. How will we know when we have given a machine its own consciousness? Will it be through its communication of emotion? Will it be its ability to learn? Will it be through its free will? How much free will does something need to be considered alive? Plants are considered to be alive by most people, yet I have a hard time imagining them as conscious. They do not seem to have much in the way of free will, they just have stimulus-response reactions with their environment. It seems that robots and computers have as much consciousness as plants do. Metabolism, growth, and reproduction are not employed by today’s machines and robots. But machines seem to have a comparable system of energy usage. Machines rely on electricity that comes from power plants, and these serve in place of metabolism. Growth does not occur in machines, but perhaps someday it will. Reproduction happens on a basic level already with robots. In assembly lines in factories, robots are programmed to construct cars and other machinery. This, however is lacking features of animal and plant reproduction, namely the genetic variation. However, it seems possible that in the future robots could be the designers as well as the builders of their offspring. If a programmer adapted the evolution and learning programming into assembly line designer robots, the robots might be able to design better robots than themselves. Someday, perhaps, we may have to compete with robots on the evolutionary food chain, as in the Matrix. However, it would be ideal if we could design robots similar to I-life that have a mutually beneficial symbiotic relationship with humans.
I think the best part of the Filth was the I-life. “Only humans could make something kinder and better than themselves that makes them smarter than God in my opinion.” I really like this line from Greg that comes in the last few pages. Not even God was willing or able to design a superior creature. The I-life evolves itself so that it may better assist humans. I-life is the ideal nano-bot. Is it possible for us to design something like it? We watched videos in class about robots that teach themselves to walk. It seems that this is the type of programming that I-life uses, where it evolves itself. So can this be considered life? What defines life? Webster’s has several definitions as following: “…characterized by metabolism, growth, and reproduction… Any conscious and intelligent existence. …the period of animate existence from birth until death.” So by these definitions, I-life would meet the qualifications of living, while the walking robots would meet only one (animate existence). How hard would it be to give it the other qualifications? Intelligence is easy, calculators and computers have that. Consciousness would be harder to program into a machine. How will we know when we have given a machine its own consciousness? Will it be through its communication of emotion? Will it be its ability to learn? Will it be through its free will? How much free will does something need to be considered alive? Plants are considered to be alive by most people, yet I have a hard time imagining them as conscious. They do not seem to have much in the way of free will, they just have stimulus-response reactions with their environment. It seems that robots and computers have as much consciousness as plants do. Metabolism, growth, and reproduction are not employed by today’s machines and robots. But machines seem to have a comparable system of energy usage. Machines rely on electricity that comes from power plants, and these serve in place of metabolism. Growth does not occur in machines, but perhaps someday it will. Reproduction happens on a basic level already with robots. In assembly lines in factories, robots are programmed to construct cars and other machinery. This, however is lacking features of animal and plant reproduction, namely the genetic variation. However, it seems possible that in the future robots could be the designers as well as the builders of their offspring. If a programmer adapted the evolution and learning programming into assembly line designer robots, the robots might be able to design better robots than themselves. Someday, perhaps, we may have to compete with robots on the evolutionary food chain, as in the Matrix. However, it would be ideal if we could design robots similar to I-life that have a mutually beneficial symbiotic relationship with humans.
Tuesday, February 17, 2009
Ribofunk, Art, the Other, and the Filth
I think that my favorite story in Ribofunk was the last one, Distributed Mind. I was intrigued by the Urb, and especially how it chose to re-create everything it had consumed. A fellow blogger noted that this is much like many people’s concept of God. I would have to agree. It seems that the Urb is similar to the Christian idea of God. The Urb is omniscient, and even seems to have a sense of justice by letting the humans continue to “live.” Art, humanness, the Other… I mentioned graffiti artists in my last blog. In Radical Alterity, graffiti artists are used as examples of humans displaying the Other. It is their inner emotions, thoughts, and feelings that they let out in anonymity. They choose to do so through art. But what is art? How do we define the limits of art? From my understanding, art is leisure, it is a practice we indulge ourselves with to expand our happiness and creativity. We make art when all of our needs of survival are met, and we have extra time to deepen ourselves on the spiritual level. We share our art with others so that they may contemplate our work, looking to find the feelings hidden in the work. Common ideas of art are paintings, sculptures, poetry, music, and literature. But isn’t food also an art? Is art something that one creates? Is this guy creating art?
The photography here is most definitely art. Even without the kayaker, this would make a great photo. The contrast of the natural power with the serene beauty that surrounds it is intriguing. The kayaker makes the shot even better. But why? Why does the viewer want to see someone put their life and limbs at risk? Do we want to associate with his emotions? Isn’t that what art is all about – emotion? Does the kayaker create his own personal art found in the emotions he creates by his own actions?
He isn’t making art in the traditional sense, but this obviously gives him a feeling not found in day-to-day activities. This feeling pleasures him so much that he will put his survival at risk to obtain it. What feeling drives this madman? Is this a way for him to release the Other? To an outsider this idea seems absurd. There is nothing remotely logical in strapping oneself into a little plastic boat and launching face first off of a waterfall. But this guy must provide himself some reason, at least enough reason to fall off of waterfalls on a regular basis. Is this a way for him to release the Other? Is this man’s Id, his inner drive, compelling him to unnaturally expose himself to danger?
Is art what makes us human? Or is it that we possess the Other (or does it possess us)? Animals do not create art. Perhaps they don’t need to. An animal may not have the Other; perhaps they are one and the same. Is this what separates man from beasts? Is this necessarily a good thing? I’m beginning to feel that art is a creation of the Other. Art is the Other. Artists= Others, hence some seem a little weird to society, they may be alienated. So to make one’s life a work of art is to make one’s life a work of the Other.
Again, is this a good idea? We’ve seen so far that we can get an insight to the Other through anonymity and art. What do we find when we look into this? We find The Ticket, YouTube, we find people kayaking off of waterfalls. We also find beauty, creation, music, compassion, and religion. Do the positive creations outweigh the filth? Is the good better than the bad? Hard to say. Is anyone really ready to let themselves loose? No. So, we control. We compose rules for ourselves, we create a “please and thank you” society of ants where everyone is subjected to the judgment of society. The “normal” obedient ones pass the test and fit into society like a jigsaw puzzle. The deviants, the Others, the “artists” are outcasts, 3D pieces in the two dimensional societal puzzle.
This connects to the first section of The Filth, where the obedient yet unhappy flat puzzle piece Greg is slapped into the third dimension as Officer Slade. This new world he is in seems vulgar, disorganized, and perhaps even artistic. Does Greg (as Slade) venture into the land of the Other? It seems this land is somewhat of a shitshow. Lots going on, slight chaos and confusion. If this world is “the land of the Other”, with spider brain robots and Nazi mechanical dolphins, I don’t think I’m ready for it. I think I’ll choose as Greg did, and stick to my puzzle piece conformity for now. I wouldn’t want my seat here to get cold.
The photography here is most definitely art. Even without the kayaker, this would make a great photo. The contrast of the natural power with the serene beauty that surrounds it is intriguing. The kayaker makes the shot even better. But why? Why does the viewer want to see someone put their life and limbs at risk? Do we want to associate with his emotions? Isn’t that what art is all about – emotion? Does the kayaker create his own personal art found in the emotions he creates by his own actions?
He isn’t making art in the traditional sense, but this obviously gives him a feeling not found in day-to-day activities. This feeling pleasures him so much that he will put his survival at risk to obtain it. What feeling drives this madman? Is this a way for him to release the Other? To an outsider this idea seems absurd. There is nothing remotely logical in strapping oneself into a little plastic boat and launching face first off of a waterfall. But this guy must provide himself some reason, at least enough reason to fall off of waterfalls on a regular basis. Is this a way for him to release the Other? Is this man’s Id, his inner drive, compelling him to unnaturally expose himself to danger?
Is art what makes us human? Or is it that we possess the Other (or does it possess us)? Animals do not create art. Perhaps they don’t need to. An animal may not have the Other; perhaps they are one and the same. Is this what separates man from beasts? Is this necessarily a good thing? I’m beginning to feel that art is a creation of the Other. Art is the Other. Artists= Others, hence some seem a little weird to society, they may be alienated. So to make one’s life a work of art is to make one’s life a work of the Other.
Again, is this a good idea? We’ve seen so far that we can get an insight to the Other through anonymity and art. What do we find when we look into this? We find The Ticket, YouTube, we find people kayaking off of waterfalls. We also find beauty, creation, music, compassion, and religion. Do the positive creations outweigh the filth? Is the good better than the bad? Hard to say. Is anyone really ready to let themselves loose? No. So, we control. We compose rules for ourselves, we create a “please and thank you” society of ants where everyone is subjected to the judgment of society. The “normal” obedient ones pass the test and fit into society like a jigsaw puzzle. The deviants, the Others, the “artists” are outcasts, 3D pieces in the two dimensional societal puzzle.
This connects to the first section of The Filth, where the obedient yet unhappy flat puzzle piece Greg is slapped into the third dimension as Officer Slade. This new world he is in seems vulgar, disorganized, and perhaps even artistic. Does Greg (as Slade) venture into the land of the Other? It seems this land is somewhat of a shitshow. Lots going on, slight chaos and confusion. If this world is “the land of the Other”, with spider brain robots and Nazi mechanical dolphins, I don’t think I’m ready for it. I think I’ll choose as Greg did, and stick to my puzzle piece conformity for now. I wouldn’t want my seat here to get cold.
Thursday, February 5, 2009
Photosynth
That Photosynth thing blew my mind. Wow. Putting all of the ethical objections aside, that is one incredible program. I gather that people can just upload photos that they or anyone else has taken, then they synth them with the program to create a 3D representation of the picture subjects. So, what could happen when people upload all of the photos in the entire world to this Photosynth? Could we create a representation of the entire world through this? What are the implications of that? I’m envisioning something like the Invention of Morel in this photosynth program. It does not have the capability to produce the things it photographs, but this seems like the best first step towards that goal.
Photosynth seems like it would tie into Google earth really well. Check out the Google Earth (GE) blog discussing Photosynth. If GE was combined with Photosynth, they could create an entire representation of the world in detail. Google Earth already allows users of Picasa, Google’s photo program, to geotag their photos and have them show up on the map.
Now, what is the potential of this technology, where could this lead? Now that people can upload photos and organize them into three dimensional models, what is the next step? Where would Burroughs take this?
What if we could upload videos instead of just still photos? Let’s imagine that we could create one storage site for all of the photos in Photosynth. Let’s go even further and say that this storage space is Google Earth. Then, how about we install webcams everywhere, street corners and such, and we program these webcams to instantly update their most recent shots to Photosynth. With this, a 1984-esque system of constant surveillance could be created. Is this where we want our technology to lead? 1984 tells us how such a system can be used to manipulate and control the people. I find this new technology to have potentially scary implications.
So, intrigued by this photosynth program, I decided to try the program out for myself. I downloaded it (free!) and synthed a few photos that I had from a snow caving trip this last weekend. I expected Photosynth to create a virtual representation of the snow cave. In the tutorial video, it says to choose objects that have strong color variations, i.e.: not the dull white walls of our snow cave. The program, unable to synth the white walls of the cave, chose instead to match my roommate’s face. What happened is that I took three pictures in a row, and he held a similar expression in the three shots, even though those around him had moved. This ability to recognize faces makes me think that our Britney Spears idea is entirely possible as the program is now. In class as we discussed it, I imagined that this program is not advanced enough to do such a task. Now I realize how close it really is. Is the world really ready for public facial recognition software? The guy in the demo had used Photosynth to search flicker for photos of Notre Dame. What if someone decided to search for a particular face? This is like FBI technology available on the internet in a free ten minute download. Frightening thought. Imagine a hacker with this program and a powerful computer. They could hack into surveillance cameras and have the program search for a face. In theory, they could locate someone as their face passed across a screen in a shopping mall. The privacy violations made possible by this program are nearly endless.
Photosynth seems like it would tie into Google earth really well. Check out the Google Earth (GE) blog discussing Photosynth.
Now, what is the potential of this technology, where could this lead? Now that people can upload photos and organize them into three dimensional models, what is the next step? Where would Burroughs take this?
What if we could upload videos instead of just still photos? Let’s imagine that we could create one storage site for all of the photos in Photosynth. Let’s go even further and say that this storage space is Google Earth. Then, how about we install webcams everywhere, street corners and such, and we program these webcams to instantly update their most recent shots to Photosynth. With this, a 1984-esque system of constant surveillance could be created. Is this where we want our technology to lead? 1984 tells us how such a system can be used to manipulate and control the people. I find this new technology to have potentially scary implications.
So, intrigued by this photosynth program, I decided to try the program out for myself. I downloaded it (free!) and synthed a few photos that I had from a snow caving trip this last weekend. I expected Photosynth to create a virtual representation of the snow cave. In the tutorial video, it says to choose objects that have strong color variations, i.e.: not the dull white walls of our snow cave. The program, unable to synth the white walls of the cave, chose instead to match my roommate’s face. What happened is that I took three pictures in a row, and he held a similar expression in the three shots, even though those around him had moved. This ability to recognize faces makes me think that our Britney Spears idea is entirely possible as the program is now. In class as we discussed it, I imagined that this program is not advanced enough to do such a task. Now I realize how close it really is. Is the world really ready for public facial recognition software? The guy in the demo had used Photosynth to search flicker for photos of Notre Dame. What if someone decided to search for a particular face? This is like FBI technology available on the internet in a free ten minute download. Frightening thought. Imagine a hacker with this program and a powerful computer. They could hack into surveillance cameras and have the program search for a face. In theory, they could locate someone as their face passed across a screen in a shopping mall. The privacy violations made possible by this program are nearly endless.
Thursday, January 29, 2009
Energy and Otherness
Some thoughts on Lyotard’s Modern Fable:
Lyotard raises some interesting questions. Are we just energy? Is all life just a complex form of organizing energy? Is this what Lyotard is proposing? Strange idea, but it almost explains the existence of life. It’s hard to look at life in a rational sense. It’s just so unbelievable… following the current beliefs of science, all of life happened out of chance over billions of years. No reason, no purpose, it just… happened. With this idea it sort of makes sense. If you look at living beings, animals and plants, it does seem that they are great containers of energy. All forms of life spend their time trying to harvest and process sources of energy, and then they reproduce so that the cycle can continue. With life, systems of energy have found a way to immortalize themselves barring a cataclysmic event that kills all life. Smart… If “energy” was intelligent and conscious, and it had been tasked to perpetuate its cycle, it couldn’t have done much better.
But, haven’t humans been striving to create a disaster of epic proportions? Ever since we evolved our intelligence, we have been making bigger and better tools to use against our fellow man. Now, we have enough nuclear bombs to “bring the sun to the earth” and destroy mankind, and possibly all life. What’s going on here? Has our theoretical “energy” failed in its design of life? Or is that the greatest accumulation of energy? Probably not. I think that the best form of energy would be the “grey goo” idea where nanobots reproduce repetitively and drown the world in little machines. Those little robots that teach themselves how to walk have this potential. They could create “the matrix” idea, where machines gain consciousness and take over humans. Is this where technology is leading? We have web 2.0, where the consumer has an active role in designing websites like wikis. We could be headed to web 3.0, where the internet designs itself.
So this is getting a little radical, let’s move on to the real radical. What is this concept of otherness? I still feel fairly confused as to the concept of the Other and how we relate to it. The biggest concept that I have found in the text is that Otherness is related to anonymity. The authors describe how graffiti is an example of Otherness through street artists. They are able to express ourselves in complete anonymity, and they do so in a way that displays their inner Other. If anonymity is a way to unearth the Other, it could serve to explain the booming popularity in anonymous internet chat rooms and such. Countless cyber sites exist that run on anonymity, forums and gaming and… plurk. Such websites seem to be a way for people to let their inner Other out. So, is this how we find the other? How do we become the Other? Do we even want to become the other?
I feel that the Other seems to be like the Id from Freudian psychology. It seems to be the inner instinct, the irrational wants and desires that the Super Ego strives to control with reason. Within the realm of anonymity, the super ego realizes that there will be no repercussions for actions done while anonymous. It determines that it can let the Id off the chain and let it roam free and say what it wants while they are hidden with anonymity. This may explain the vulgar content of the internet, pornography and such. Perhaps it is healthy to unleash the Id every once in a while, or perhaps releasing oneself of self control is unwise.
Lyotard raises some interesting questions. Are we just energy? Is all life just a complex form of organizing energy? Is this what Lyotard is proposing? Strange idea, but it almost explains the existence of life. It’s hard to look at life in a rational sense. It’s just so unbelievable… following the current beliefs of science, all of life happened out of chance over billions of years. No reason, no purpose, it just… happened. With this idea it sort of makes sense. If you look at living beings, animals and plants, it does seem that they are great containers of energy. All forms of life spend their time trying to harvest and process sources of energy, and then they reproduce so that the cycle can continue. With life, systems of energy have found a way to immortalize themselves barring a cataclysmic event that kills all life. Smart… If “energy” was intelligent and conscious, and it had been tasked to perpetuate its cycle, it couldn’t have done much better.
But, haven’t humans been striving to create a disaster of epic proportions? Ever since we evolved our intelligence, we have been making bigger and better tools to use against our fellow man. Now, we have enough nuclear bombs to “bring the sun to the earth” and destroy mankind, and possibly all life. What’s going on here? Has our theoretical “energy” failed in its design of life? Or is that the greatest accumulation of energy? Probably not. I think that the best form of energy would be the “grey goo” idea where nanobots reproduce repetitively and drown the world in little machines. Those little robots that teach themselves how to walk have this potential. They could create “the matrix” idea, where machines gain consciousness and take over humans. Is this where technology is leading? We have web 2.0, where the consumer has an active role in designing websites like wikis. We could be headed to web 3.0, where the internet designs itself.
So this is getting a little radical, let’s move on to the real radical. What is this concept of otherness? I still feel fairly confused as to the concept of the Other and how we relate to it. The biggest concept that I have found in the text is that Otherness is related to anonymity. The authors describe how graffiti is an example of Otherness through street artists. They are able to express ourselves in complete anonymity, and they do so in a way that displays their inner Other. If anonymity is a way to unearth the Other, it could serve to explain the booming popularity in anonymous internet chat rooms and such. Countless cyber sites exist that run on anonymity, forums and gaming and… plurk. Such websites seem to be a way for people to let their inner Other out. So, is this how we find the other? How do we become the Other? Do we even want to become the other?
I feel that the Other seems to be like the Id from Freudian psychology. It seems to be the inner instinct, the irrational wants and desires that the Super Ego strives to control with reason. Within the realm of anonymity, the super ego realizes that there will be no repercussions for actions done while anonymous. It determines that it can let the Id off the chain and let it roam free and say what it wants while they are hidden with anonymity. This may explain the vulgar content of the internet, pornography and such. Perhaps it is healthy to unleash the Id every once in a while, or perhaps releasing oneself of self control is unwise.
Sunday, January 25, 2009
Blogging again... The Ticket
So I feel like the YouTube with the weird old guy had a lot to do with my last blog. In the last one, I talked about the concept of “the word” introduced in The Ticket that Exploded. A section in Burroughs’ book says that “the word”, unconscious mental dialogue, is ingrained in humans to the point where we can’t get rid of it even if we consciously try. I expanded on that idea, saying that good music (but only wordless music) enables us to rid ourselves of “the word” for a few seconds. The old man in the YouTube video has an opposite reaction. He says that music for him tells stories, and brings words to mind. But when he hears traffic in the city, it is just noise. He does not hear words, there is no meaning to the random horn and engine sounds. The old man seems to like the sounds of traffic, perhaps for this reason. He expressed that city noise relieves him of “the word”, and it maybe gives him peace and mental rest. This really follows along with my proposal in my last blog, that humans enjoy a temporary freedom from “the word.” It seems that this is the reason why some thrill seekers search for a rush of adrenaline, for in that time they are free from any mental dialogue and their minds revert into a primal survival mentality.
Later in The Ticket, we come upon a scene where two fish men explore the concept of time travel (after sex of course). They refer back to the concept that I have dubbed “the word” in their talk.
“Well time is getting dressed and undressed eating sleeping not the actions but the words… what we say about what we do. Would there be any time if we didn’t say anything?”
“Maybe not. Maybe that would be the first step… yes if we could learn to listen and not talk.”
This notion can explain why people seek to escape “the word.” Maybe we feel that when we are constrained by “the word” then we are also constrained by time. To break free of “the word” could have the feeling of conquering time. If I remember times when I have been I precarious situations where I have broken free of “the word,” those moments seem to have a small distortion of time. Animals don’t have the power of “the word”; do they have the same sense of time as we do? Do they think in grunts and squeaks, as opposed to words? It’s irrelevant, yet an interesting thought.
In parts of The Ticket, Burroughs compares “the word” to a virus or an addiction (is this why we watched the vaccination cartoon?). This idea is radical, yet it is somewhat possible. Humans never sat down one day and decided to think. Our thinking came to us through emotions, and then we assigned the emotions words to communicate them. But we had no say in the matter. We can’t decide to not talk. “The word” invaded us just like a virus, ever to remain in our conscious and unconscious minds.
Burroughs takes it one step further. The plot (at least what I could find between the mess of unrelated scenes) of The Ticket is that the Nova Mob is going to destroy the world by using “the word.” They travel through people with addictions and they use “the word” like a plague to try to overload the world and “grey goo” the planet out of existence. I think it’s something like that, maybe not. It’s a cool thought though. Could the virus of “the word” be the end of mankind? Weird. Maybe Burroughs’ style of writing is an example of what happens when the Nova Mob gets their goal and corrupts the world with an overload of “the word.”
Strange thoughts here, my own ideas make no sense, but this book really doesn’t either. I think that the reason this book is hard to read is that we can find no purpose, no moral lesson that the book is striving to teach. Every book that I’ve read before has had a reason, some hidden message. I feel that Burroughs must have some message hidden in all the gibberish, but besides these wacky ideas I can’t really find one.
Later in The Ticket, we come upon a scene where two fish men explore the concept of time travel (after sex of course). They refer back to the concept that I have dubbed “the word” in their talk.
“Well time is getting dressed and undressed eating sleeping not the actions but the words… what we say about what we do. Would there be any time if we didn’t say anything?”
“Maybe not. Maybe that would be the first step… yes if we could learn to listen and not talk.”
This notion can explain why people seek to escape “the word.” Maybe we feel that when we are constrained by “the word” then we are also constrained by time. To break free of “the word” could have the feeling of conquering time. If I remember times when I have been I precarious situations where I have broken free of “the word,” those moments seem to have a small distortion of time. Animals don’t have the power of “the word”; do they have the same sense of time as we do? Do they think in grunts and squeaks, as opposed to words? It’s irrelevant, yet an interesting thought.
In parts of The Ticket, Burroughs compares “the word” to a virus or an addiction (is this why we watched the vaccination cartoon?). This idea is radical, yet it is somewhat possible. Humans never sat down one day and decided to think. Our thinking came to us through emotions, and then we assigned the emotions words to communicate them. But we had no say in the matter. We can’t decide to not talk. “The word” invaded us just like a virus, ever to remain in our conscious and unconscious minds.
Burroughs takes it one step further. The plot (at least what I could find between the mess of unrelated scenes) of The Ticket is that the Nova Mob is going to destroy the world by using “the word.” They travel through people with addictions and they use “the word” like a plague to try to overload the world and “grey goo” the planet out of existence. I think it’s something like that, maybe not. It’s a cool thought though. Could the virus of “the word” be the end of mankind? Weird. Maybe Burroughs’ style of writing is an example of what happens when the Nova Mob gets their goal and corrupts the world with an overload of “the word.”
Strange thoughts here, my own ideas make no sense, but this book really doesn’t either. I think that the reason this book is hard to read is that we can find no purpose, no moral lesson that the book is striving to teach. Every book that I’ve read before has had a reason, some hidden message. I feel that Burroughs must have some message hidden in all the gibberish, but besides these wacky ideas I can’t really find one.
Thursday, January 22, 2009
Ticket that exploded
I’m not so sure about this book. This whole style of writing is completely foreign to me. It seems to be just a stream of consciousness from a corrupted, possibly schizophrenic mind. For the first five or so pages it was super easy to read. I found that I could read a paragraph, then zone out as I read the next one, and jump right back in and not have to reread. I really liked that conveinience, but it didn’t last. Soon, the unrelenting sexual refrences grabbed hold of me. I really don’t understand what the deal is there, is that really necessary? Im not opposed to sex, violence, or vulgarity in a book, but this is just over the top. It seems that the characters in the book are constantly bombarded with homosexual impulses and it keeps them in a state of constant orgasm. There are several instances in the book of semen being collected, but no purpose is apparent.
There is one concept that stood out to me. The author asks the reader to silence their inner word. “Modern man has lost the option of silence. Try halting your sub-vocal speech. Try to achieve even ten seconds of inner silence. You will encounter a resisting organinsm that forces you to talk. That organism is the word (Burroughs,49).” Upon testing the challenge, I found that the author is indeed right. I cant achieve ten seconds of inner silence. I cant even achieve two seconds. Now for an interesting observation: when I try this experiment with music in the background I can reach the three or four second mark. Perhaps this is the unspoken goal of music: to enable inner silence. I think that precious short moments of inner silence can be attained in other ways too. Meditation comes to mind. Also, moments of fight-or-flight reaction create inner silence where one experiences no conscious thoughts. Perhaps that’s exactly the emotion that extreme sports athletes are shooting for. Ive noticed in my own such moments that for those precious few seconds, everything is put on hold. The only thing that matters in that moment is the reflex to whats happening.
Its funny to have found this idea in a book that seems full of the opposite. The author’s style of writing seems to center on an endless stream of words, an information overload where the reader is lost and must try their best to decipher a plot out of the madness. Perhaps I’m missing the mark, but I have trouble finding any other meaning in The Ticket That Exploded.
There is one concept that stood out to me. The author asks the reader to silence their inner word. “Modern man has lost the option of silence. Try halting your sub-vocal speech. Try to achieve even ten seconds of inner silence. You will encounter a resisting organinsm that forces you to talk. That organism is the word (Burroughs,49).” Upon testing the challenge, I found that the author is indeed right. I cant achieve ten seconds of inner silence. I cant even achieve two seconds. Now for an interesting observation: when I try this experiment with music in the background I can reach the three or four second mark. Perhaps this is the unspoken goal of music: to enable inner silence. I think that precious short moments of inner silence can be attained in other ways too. Meditation comes to mind. Also, moments of fight-or-flight reaction create inner silence where one experiences no conscious thoughts. Perhaps that’s exactly the emotion that extreme sports athletes are shooting for. Ive noticed in my own such moments that for those precious few seconds, everything is put on hold. The only thing that matters in that moment is the reflex to whats happening.
Its funny to have found this idea in a book that seems full of the opposite. The author’s style of writing seems to center on an endless stream of words, an information overload where the reader is lost and must try their best to decipher a plot out of the madness. Perhaps I’m missing the mark, but I have trouble finding any other meaning in The Ticket That Exploded.
Tuesday, January 13, 2009
Fantasy, Soul, and the Next Dimension
I feel that in our studies of writing small, the material presented is all connected by the theme of a fantasy. Perhaps the smallest writing is done in the comfort and safety of our own brains. Beyond writing, we can create our own worlds in our minds, thousands of tiny realities that exist only when we tell them to. They follow the rules we give them, and we can change those as we please. It’s strange that we tend to break only one rule at a time. Donald Duck allowed himself to be out of scale to his perfect little world, but was offended by the tree that was proportionate to him. He bent the rules for himself, but nothing else. He even pretended that he fit into that world as a tiny milkman, but then broke the rule again to play the weatherman.
Fantasies also connect into the higher dimensions. It seems that the upper dimensions are defined by all possible existences and universes, just as if one were to combine all the fantasies ever had. I guess that the dimensions are limited by our imaginations. Expanded dimensions result when we imagine possible imaginations. It’s not so easy to imagine imaginations, and therein lays the Pataphor. Translate the saying “think outside of the box” to mean “think in the next dimension,” or “think through the box,” or “think of the other boxes.” By going outside the 3D box, one must enter the higher planes of the fourth dimension, just as the unaware flat and entered the third dimension by walking in a loop. That movie really has me thinking.
Are our fantasies limited by our senses? We’ve reached ten dimensions, but still found only five senses? What’s with that? Could our imaginations be considered a sense? What even defines a sense? It’s just like the Matrix; could everything just be a fantasy? One of the other bloggers mentioned dreams. Why don’t we consider dreams real? We see, hear, and feel stuff that we find very real (I haven’t smelled or tasted in the dreamscape, yet). The only reason we label the dream as not real is because we wake up from it, and rediscover our other two senses. If we are forced to define reality as what we can find with our five senses, then we have to allow for the possibility that we could “wake up” someday in another world with six senses. Neo in the Matrix was fooled by the world he sensed up until he took the red pill.
Maybe the next sense, as it connects to the fifth dimension, is time travel. It would seem that Morel and the fugitive on the island feel that the images are conquering time in their immortality. Could the soul really transfer to the images? I feel that it would not. The soul needs moral choice. The images are stuck in an endless loop, every movement is predicted and the same as the last week. The soul cannot exist under those conditions. The soul needs spontaneity; it needs more than just existence. The castaway on the island showed soul by falling in love with Faustine. She showed none, unable to react. If there was a soul in the images, it would have died of boredom. Morel tried so hard, but never created a soul. The soul is like the fifth dimension, all possibilities must exist, and the soul gets to choose one.
One of the major concepts in The Invention of Morel comes when the unnamed man is stuck in the machine room because the wall recreated itself. He asks, “And what if Morel had thought to photograph the motors--?” Here, Morel is playing God. He has broken into the next dimension, creating an eternal existence. However, what he lacks is the soul. The moral choice ceases to exist and this immortal island has only one existence to choose from. Morel has broken the laws. The important lesson in the concept of the dimensions is that they require soul. The little flat ant had the choice to take the extra step that put him on the other side of the newspaper and therefore into the 3rd dimension. The soul exists in the ant, because it had that moral choice and creativity. Morel’s images do not have that choice, they are stuck in a loop just like the broken record that plays “Tea for Two” and “Valencia.” The record has no soul. To have soul, the record player would need a DJ to provide the choice and select the song it wanted. Morel’s images are just robots, but robots that have broken the natural laws and are immortal. So in a way, Morel didn’t quite make it to the fifth dimension, more like 4 ½ dimensions.
It surprised me that the unnamed man on the island didn’t see this. He seemed to lose interest in Faustine, but then regained it all in full force. He made the moral choice in the 4th dimension to immortalize himself in the next dimension, but his reproduction has no soul.
Skyler Mavor
Fantasies also connect into the higher dimensions. It seems that the upper dimensions are defined by all possible existences and universes, just as if one were to combine all the fantasies ever had. I guess that the dimensions are limited by our imaginations. Expanded dimensions result when we imagine possible imaginations. It’s not so easy to imagine imaginations, and therein lays the Pataphor. Translate the saying “think outside of the box” to mean “think in the next dimension,” or “think through the box,” or “think of the other boxes.” By going outside the 3D box, one must enter the higher planes of the fourth dimension, just as the unaware flat and entered the third dimension by walking in a loop. That movie really has me thinking.
Are our fantasies limited by our senses? We’ve reached ten dimensions, but still found only five senses? What’s with that? Could our imaginations be considered a sense? What even defines a sense? It’s just like the Matrix; could everything just be a fantasy? One of the other bloggers mentioned dreams. Why don’t we consider dreams real? We see, hear, and feel stuff that we find very real (I haven’t smelled or tasted in the dreamscape, yet). The only reason we label the dream as not real is because we wake up from it, and rediscover our other two senses. If we are forced to define reality as what we can find with our five senses, then we have to allow for the possibility that we could “wake up” someday in another world with six senses. Neo in the Matrix was fooled by the world he sensed up until he took the red pill.
Maybe the next sense, as it connects to the fifth dimension, is time travel. It would seem that Morel and the fugitive on the island feel that the images are conquering time in their immortality. Could the soul really transfer to the images? I feel that it would not. The soul needs moral choice. The images are stuck in an endless loop, every movement is predicted and the same as the last week. The soul cannot exist under those conditions. The soul needs spontaneity; it needs more than just existence. The castaway on the island showed soul by falling in love with Faustine. She showed none, unable to react. If there was a soul in the images, it would have died of boredom. Morel tried so hard, but never created a soul. The soul is like the fifth dimension, all possibilities must exist, and the soul gets to choose one.
One of the major concepts in The Invention of Morel comes when the unnamed man is stuck in the machine room because the wall recreated itself. He asks, “And what if Morel had thought to photograph the motors--?” Here, Morel is playing God. He has broken into the next dimension, creating an eternal existence. However, what he lacks is the soul. The moral choice ceases to exist and this immortal island has only one existence to choose from. Morel has broken the laws. The important lesson in the concept of the dimensions is that they require soul. The little flat ant had the choice to take the extra step that put him on the other side of the newspaper and therefore into the 3rd dimension. The soul exists in the ant, because it had that moral choice and creativity. Morel’s images do not have that choice, they are stuck in a loop just like the broken record that plays “Tea for Two” and “Valencia.” The record has no soul. To have soul, the record player would need a DJ to provide the choice and select the song it wanted. Morel’s images are just robots, but robots that have broken the natural laws and are immortal. So in a way, Morel didn’t quite make it to the fifth dimension, more like 4 ½ dimensions.
It surprised me that the unnamed man on the island didn’t see this. He seemed to lose interest in Faustine, but then regained it all in full force. He made the moral choice in the 4th dimension to immortalize himself in the next dimension, but his reproduction has no soul.
Skyler Mavor
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
