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?
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
