Final Exam

Part I

1. Book groups: the additional texts have been a key component of the course. How has the work in your book groups differed from that which takes place in our discussions of the other texts in class and elsewhere (plurk & blogs)? What kinds of discussions are possible in the setting of the book groups? What is not possible within these settings?

The book groups were different than the class in that we discussed the progression of the story in the book and rarely ventured far from the story line. For example in class we may watch a cartoon that plays on the theme of alterity, and discuss how today is important with respect to that theme. The book groups where a forum where today could be comfortably discussed in the context of the book theme. The class was where it was at when it came to the modern and future notions of the themes we discussed. The blog became a sort of extension of those themes because what frustrated us or was peculiar to us could be discussed with more forethought and candor on the blog and it would sound much more professional than what answers we could come up with in class. Plurk I feel was like the Ticket That Exploded, in that it’s not what was in there that mattered but the format it was presented in. Plurk for me became the super-organism you mentioned at the beginning of class. We could share pictures and videos, ask pretty quickly questions about material and usually get answers. What was interesting about plurk was that it got us to silly things sometimes, the anonymity of plurk and the separation from physical people while on plurk allowed us to sometimes be silly and sometimes be serious, but what was important about plurk was that the restrictions we had because of plurk did not limit us in any significant way. We could post 140 characters and still get the point across. We used the guidance words to set up sentences about ourselves. What gets me is that there was alterity between ourselves and our plurk identities. Every post on plurk was in the third person, as though you are an observer upon your own self. That frame allowed us the comfort of separation from who we are and let us do things that otherwise may not be done, said, or expressed. Some people on plurk had great ideas, but when that third person separation disappeared in the classroom those people would not participate. A plurk class might have been a pretty cool thing, because that setting allows those who are timid or shy to add their two cents, and may get at something very important. In the book groups we can really intimately get to know each other, in a way it is like plurk but a smaller group, and more focused on a single text. The discussions that are possible here are only restricted by the concepts in the book. I found myself wanting to discover how midnight robber is like the material we discussed in class, but it just made things complicated. Midnight robber was just a good, entertaining book. There were some themes and ideas that translated over like technology, and technological advancement in different settings, but we did not discuss them in great detail. I think that the type of discussion that is not possible in the setting of the book groups are ones that deal with today and tomorrow. We will eventually just speak about the content of the book and we need a guiding hand to show us the deeper meaning in the book. I had this happen in the Invention of Morel, I liked the book and when it ended I was confused, only after class discussion did I see its meaning and relevance. The book groups I think will overlook some important concepts and themes within the books. I still am not sure if there is more to Midnight Robber than just its entertainment value, and good ending. I don’t think I am alone because the other posts I read where always dealing with the content and not the content decoded. The message in Midnight Robber escapes us unless there is none and in fact it was just entertainment.

2. Plurk: Without it the class would not be the class. Using the texts we have read in class explain how plurk fits in with the issues of technology and the human body that we have discussed thus far.

Plurk offers us a way to do things and say things to each other that is not restricted by the traditional problems of communication. Instead a different set of restrictions are placed in plurk (140 characters, a few guiding words) we then compose our ideas and post them to the net. As I think about it each book has something to say about plurk and the human body. In Morel we could say that plurk is a sort of machine that lets us upload who we are onto the net and remain there for eternity. In TTE we see just how important language is to us and that even when the format changes we still are able to adapt and communicate. I do however think that plurk is more about identity than bodies, because it does not need bodies to exist; it needs people but not bodies. I think that plurk allows for a certain kind of telepathy because the communication happens once but it remains there as if in TTE machines are doing the work of talking for us. Once it is posted it remains there and is continuous, so communication is happening without the body or even mind. I wonder if plurk is an upgrade or down grade in communication. It is technology but it does not do what we should strive for in communication advancement. I expect real telepathy to be an accomplishment plurk is just a way to hit someone up with a quick note, like a post it notes. The type of communication that occurs will therefore be condensed and meaningless unless there is something larger that is being discussed and digested. For example if I read the Filth, I can then plurk what the Filth is about in 140 characters, but if someone reads that plurk they might not know what I am talking about if they have not read Filth. I could say Communist CHIMP!!! And that would make more sense to someone who read the book and plurk than just the plurk. I think that plurk does not accelerate or improve communication because it does not make things simpler to communicate; it is just another and different way to communicate more complex ideas that must first be learned. So plurk to me in regards to the body and technology is a side step. Plurk becomes a chemistry set that we can extract essence from, but the essence of a plurk post is a derivative of something larger and more complete. Until plurk finds a way to skip that step, it will not be anything more than a process to communicate condensed ideas. There is however something to be said about plurk and the human body. Some people are not able to express their ideas in class, the separation of the body from the ideas and mind allow people to say things on plurk, usually things that they would not say in class sometimes that is the only way they communicated. This demonstrates just how much the body influences the ideas behind the body. The moment the separation of those two things occurs we are able to see that bodies and minds are distinctly different and that one can influence the other, or obstruct the other. I find it fascinating that people do have a mechanism in them that only plurk can overcome, within the classroom setting plurk allows us to enjoy each other’s ideas without the fears that are associated with expressing those ideas.

Part II

1. Others: Alterity has been huge theme of our class, is something that we have thought in a variety of different ways. Using the text of Radical Alterity as a starting point address how you have rethought the concept of the other using a text from the course, the in class discussions, and your experience with plurk and/or blogging.

Radical Alterity seems to suggest that to project the other or to construct the other we must first create a distance between us and them. The other must be near and far, near because they must have something in common with us, something that we can associate with (they are human or do human things perhaps) but far in the sense that we are not them, they have nothing to do with us. When this distance is created we can and do begin to project the bad or regrettable features of ourselves upon the other. They become a kind of scapegoat for our own shortcomings. In midnight robber Janisette became the other to Tan Tan, both where close by proximity to Antonio, but far because Tan Tan ended up killing Antonio. Janisette may have wanted to do this but once Tan Tan did it, Janisette was able to justify harming Tan Tan to exact revenge. It not only became ok to harm Tan Tan it became necessary because she was othered. The class discussions made me think about the other in another light. A bit in reverse I think, the other I thought could only be a bad thing, a kind of means to an ends, but when we were on Life Extreme and the notion of the otherness of animals makes it ok to manipulate and use them for human ends. I wondered if otherness was ever used for good. Life Extreme and our discussions around that book showed me that otherness is just a tool or process by which we take for ourselves the moral authority to do what we think is right and necessary even though they may sometimes be regrettable. It’s ok to eat meat animals are the other, we can even use pigs for hearts and rats for ears because, although we must have much in common to be able to exchange parts, the animals are the other.
Otherness with respect to plurk was weird for me I actually saw plurk as a way to unify rather than divide. So I think that otherness was absent in plurk in accordance with me and other people. Plurk did end up having an othering affect on me with respect to my own identity. The plurk was in third person and naturally makes the other a necessary operator. With the otherness of myself on plurk I was able to see just who Norbertrojsza was and what he thought. I could look back on the plurk in a few years and I think could critically examine and judge whether I like the guy or not, the otherness of myself allows for sober examination of who it is I am. Blogging did not have themes of alterity for me either, when I would post something on plurk or blog I tried to make it as much me as the real me is. I think it is because the blog is an extension of class in a sense allowing us to revisit and expand on ideas confronted in class, the same person inquires in the class as on the blog. When I would read other peoples blogs they to me where not others but often times the same, because we are in the same class, read the same material, we more or less had the same questions and struggled with the same notions. We were also more the same than different and I had no reason to other them, because I stood to gain nothing from it. But it is curious that people I disagreed with where more prone to being othered than people I agreed with. I did rethink otherness with respect to national security and war. I figured out after the cartoon of propaganda where rational thought and desire battle it out in the head that when the other is constructed, it is important to distance oneself from the other, and then to become the other in a subtle way. The further you can get the more effectively the control mechanism can be used. It is an interesting control mechanism that the other can provide, and if used right can be quite effective.

2. 2. Limits: one of the ways that we have approached the small is with our plurk assignments, in your opinion how have these limits: 1) made you think about language 2) made you think about the small 3) helped you with your writing

Plurk has made me think of language as a sort of flexible code. We were not that limited even though limits where placed upon us in plurk. If we wanted to say something we could say it in ways that created mental shortcuts like c u l8tr. I think that when using limits it is important to distinguish between small and bit limits. Not to exceed and at least this much limits, when I think about all the papers I have written that must be at least 15 pages long I shudder because often times the limits of the large create a need to water down and expand ideas that can be expressed quite well in a small sentence. The limits of the small however are more powerful, because humans have their own limits of the small such as poor memory and short attention spans; the limits of the small make for more powerful ideas, because they must be concentrated. An effective metaphor might be taking a piece of candy and diluting it into water (limit of the large) vs. concentrating the candy even more so that it is even more potent and takes up even less space. Language can benefit from small limits because ideas become more potent, limits of the large just dilute meaning. Plurk also allows for language to become a fun exercise, granted we will not be doing plurk exercises in other settings but to impose upon oneself the limits of the small is to challenge oneself to think truly big. I believe it was Einstein who said that true genius is to take a big idea and to simplify it.
Plurk has made me think of the small very little; small is not a great word for plurk I think. A better word might be fundamental or simple. Plurk has made me think about those ideas in virtue of the location and space that the ideas I present on plurk occupy, the memorable features of the passages created, and the usefulness of small limits with respect to strong ideas (vs. big limits). I think that the communication that happens on plurk is useful because ideas can take up little space but have a large impact when they are small and consistent with our own nature as human beings (that is to say creatures with limits of the small of our own) I recently looked under Mickey’s beer caps my friends have been drinking and there are great puzzles that deal with the small, they are small phrases that are condensed even more by the addition of pictures (http://www.mickeys.com/caps/home/index/?go=caps&SID=l02ns0msu5t97s1doqv2d46jk0) when I saw these I immediately thought of nanotext. Hope you enjoy. Those pictures are not unlike the emoticons we used in plurk to describe emotion in our passages. The passage lacks true accurate emotion because we are left to try to understand to what degree one is sad or happy or confused etc. but a small improvement is an improvement nonetheless.
I think that plurk will not help me with my writing in university, because limits of the big are imposed more often than limits of the small. However when I leave university the limits of the small on plurk will help me greatly, explaining an idea in a few sentences sounds like watching a movie instead of reading a book people seem to prefer to have their information, any information condensed and plurk has helped me identify how to use my own limits to make the point more concentrated. In the real world time is money and the quicker a big idea can be expressed and communicated the better.

3. 3. Animals and Machines: our texts have been filled with both of these things. Working with Ronell & Kac’s text Life Extreme, make a case for the difference between animals and machines. Is there such a difference? And where do humans fit in all of this?

It would be all to simple to just say that there is or is not a difference, animals are a sort of primitive machine at best. Physically they are not machines, they posses mobility that many machines do not, animals serve biological functions on the earth. A computer is a machine, but its circuits are not they are components. Animals can be seen as components to the machine of life, but not machines themselves. However we can escape the physical characteristics of animals and talk about their mental capacities, they can be trained (programmed) and do things that without guidance would not be possible, like become Seeing Eye dogs, or carrier pigeons. This malleability allows us to be able to see animals in a way that more closely associates them with machines, because machines are not useful until humans use their abilities to tell the machines what to do, just like animals. We can domesticate animals and by doing so we unlock their machine like characteristics and use them like machines for our own comforts. So animals are not physically machines but rather components of a larger machine that they participate in. They are like machines in accordance with their behavior because they are programmable and upgradeable (like one all too familiar muscular cow) however they must become machines, they are not automatically behaviorally machines. Humans have a dual role because without their influence animals would not be able to become machines. At the same time humans can be programmed the same way other animals can (what is training and why would we call it that after all) humans can be educated but we are animals, so we have a sort of separation within the human race of those who are more machine (trained) and those who are more human (trainer). It is interesting that the training comes from humans though; it is only possible for animals and humans to become machines when humans are involved. Those who are more human are able to exert influence over those who are below them on the human scale; those who are more machine are tools for the purposes assigned them. I really do buy into the master slave dichotomy because enlightened peoples job is to spread their knowledge to the unenlightened. Everyone does not have the capacity to understand this knowledge that some produce. It can be observed in the cartoon about viruses and vaccination. When the immune system militarizes that is no different than the organization of humans into a large machine of some other sort. The component and machine analysis is useful I think in identifying when it is that humans are machines and when they are not.

Is there a difference between machines and animals? Yes. Can animals become machines? Yes but only if humans are involved. Where do humans fit into this, we own the system, some of us even own those who own the system. Humans control who becomes a machine and who does not. It will be up to us who gets to become a machine, not anyone else.

Great class take care Tony.

Cartoons

The cartoons (especially the propoganda) was entertaining and nostalgic. My personal favorite was Hanz when we discussed the Nazi mind. It illustrated alterity in a clear way while showing its hipocracies, that we project our badness onto the other to make it ok to punish or attack it. I also liked the rational thought and emotional desire cartoon. Alterity was greatly focused on and played in with the Themes discussed in Radical Alterity.

Technocolyps and the end of days

My favorite time in the class was watching the scary new possibilities offered in the technopolyps movie. Never had i thought about post humanism or its existance untill the movie was played. It was an excelent compliment to the theme of the class and really sets up the ideas and concepts that the books expand upon.

It does challenge the mind and ask the hard questions about humanity, we get the same questions out of Life Extreme. Where is the line between human and not human? machine or animal? and why is it important, is it important?

I don't beleive that the world will come to an end with the digital messiah leading the way into a new age of prosperity. I think that it is more realistic that we will just have new forms of communication and mobility, we will be able to do more, and will have less reason to be frugal. The movie non the less is excellent material for the course and i enjoyed it greatly.

Postsingular- Telepathy and Parasites

I liked the idea in Postsingular that far and close start to merge. The orchid net seemed like total connection and is like a more advanced internet. The notion of telepathy and its affect on us confuses me a bit I always wondered what life would look like in a telepathic world. Would it be a fair and unique place with people having distinct difference between them, or would the world look more top down than ever? Would people submit themselves to what is true or is such a thing like true and real nonexistent and unattainable? If it is the case that the world would look more authoritative with the smart leading the stupid with no question about the truth, does that them imply the notion of freedom being dependent upon ignorance? Is it that I must not know what is or is not good to be able to select, without conditions of malfeasance, an option that yields bad outcomes?

And what about if the world looks more distinct and people are still individuals because truth is not attainable, does that not become kind of noisy? Will we not have la Rouch people bothering us nonstop? Any old mother-shut-your-mouth coming by and bothering us when we want to tune out? And does that imply that freedom is not attainable at all? Because of the influence upon your desire to withdraw from the telepathic connection? So in either case of telepathy freedom (which is problematic on its own) is further complicated. But what we have is not so off from at least one of these scenarios. Want to live in a city enjoy your commercials, and billboards in parks.

We talked about the technological aspect of drugs and that drugs are really just technology. Maybe so, but drugs fall into many categories. It is their use that becomes the focal point in the same way other technologies are judged by. The discussion of extremely powerful technologies I think is worth more as discussed when we talk about not can we handle the technologies but who of us can we trust to handle these technologies and can we take the risks in trusting them, that will solve our technological quarrels.
The notion of parasites being things that eat next to you is I think just false. Parasites are not things that eat next to you their eating next to you is a byproduct of them taking your goods from you. A leech is a parasite and things that behave like leeches are parasites, a flesh eating virus is a parasite because it takes from you. A person can be a parasite but not if they are simply enjoying a meal next to you, they must be eating you in some tangible way (not taking your ideas but your matter your atoms). A parasite is a thing that devours the stuff that composes you, and yes parasites are bad. They are undesirable because they impose their presence without permission, should this not be the case then maybe they are desirable but the situation dictates that. A doctor may use leeches to improve blood flow and recovery, but the good in this situation results from the choice to perform the procedure. An invading army is a parasite because it is uninvited and seeks to eat your stuff, your house your land. A liver is not a parasite nor is any other organ, they do not take but rather recycle or modify food, you are not having anything taken away from you but rather rearranged in you, your organs are companions not parasites.
I think it was a good last book, it mirrored morel in some of its concepts and tied together the class in a full circle way that brought the ideas of small, of format, of code, of location, of humanness and things that are human (like thought) in a way that I think ends the purpose of the course very well.

The Filth

Boy good thing that we read TTE, otherwise the message may have been missed.

This was a hard read for me, not because the material was bad or anything but because the environment was so dark and depressing. The pictures or dirt misery and all around Filth (good title) just dragged me down as I read it. The constant watching and monitoring, judgment and perverse sex, a little much when the pictures are right there, and you can’t self sensor with your imagination.

Im not sure what the book was saying in the end or what message it meant to get across but some things I took from the book are:

Some rules are meant to be broken, and in fact created to be broken. In the real world law enforcement has judgment calls. The rules give us this sense of barrier or incubation from our own most destructive tendencies. But the law enforcement sometimes breaks those rules set up to protect all. The mission and laws in place don’t always coinside. Like protect the peace, but if a cop runs in on some young boy getting raped by his (just killed) mothers’ boyfriend, who would be critical if the cop shot the guy in self defense? Even though that man has some rights and rules are in place to protect them we may feel justice has been done and the future public safety has been accounted for. I think one of the things this book is illustrating is if we place our reliance in technology to protect and regulate ourselves and do not do some of the work ourselves, we only perpetuate and increase the frequency of this tendency to occur. Not to say it is always bad but that we should be aware of it. Succumbing to the comfort of technology may not always do us well.

I like to interpret the hand metaphorically, lets say like Adam Smith might. When the hand does its best to clean up I think there is a hidden message there, it does its best but the slack needs to be taken over by us. I think that this might be another point for the “don’t be too reliant on technology” crowd.

I don’t know if there is some religious overtone with the cat worship, (worship like love)…. That’s just kind of weird cat love he’s got going on. I want to think it means something but maybe not maybe its just a distraction, from some other messag the author is trying to send, i didnt receve that memo.

Overall I liked the book it was nice to not have to do the imagining of the scenes. (sounds like I was overly reliant on the technology of the picture, bah!! They got me)

Life Extreme - How to Improve the Human Condition

What gets me about this book is that the pictures are out of this world (these pictures are actually in this world even more amazing). A GREEN BUNNY wow pretty amazing what humans can do. The book transitioned well from Ribofunk, and the pictures where not as spooky after reading Ribofunk.

On that note here are some problems I have with the books content, or rather what I don’t see happening that I hoped would. When we are able to create a human ear using the biology of a mouse we blur the line between animals, humans, and technology. They start to become one part in a greater system or picture. This I don’t think is controversial. I have never thought myself that much different than an ape on a biological level; in fact I have just as many appendages off of my abdomen as many other mammals and brains that do most of what their brains do as well. Nursing for young and the like, even behavioral patterns are somewhat alike. What I don’t see this book doing is showing how technology is being used to overcome human limits that are innately human. To be more specific, I think what makes humans not animals but humans is something that goes on in the mind of the human being. Whatever it is called it is something that distinctly gives humans an ability to form complex relationships, reason with each other communicate emotions and give and take directives. These processes are human and they have their flaws when perhaps emotions get in the way of performance of tasks and completion of directives. What I am not seeing is how the manipulation of biology that helps create an ear for a human or increases the productivity of meat from a cow that will no doubt help decrease poverty helps overcome the limitations that the human processes of the mind undertake. I would not say that increasing the lifespan of humans by giving them pig hearts is something that does not help overcome that limit, I ask what human limits of the mind can we overcome when we start to call upon and manipulate the power of nature? I wonder about these human limits and think about all those times I was told that humans capacity is boundless. Does that mean we place those limits upon ourselves individually or as a collective? If I had a better memory with the use of some electronic hard drive would I be able to overcome the human limit of poor memory? Or is it that there is a point at which my own limits are not human limits but limits of my own that I must try to overcome? Maybe overcoming human limits means training my memory rather than using a hard drive to improve it. What I am starting to think is that human limits (limits of the mind) are such that when we attempt to improve our mind through anything but hard work we become less human or we make an attack on humanity. I think that what makes humans distinct from animals is the capacity to overcome our immediate inabilities through our work. Some humans never attempt this; the capacity does not imply desire. Some humans are able to do great things, others are able to as well but do not attempt it. I think that humans in fact do not have human limits because what it is to be human is determined by humans themselves. I say it is that we have cognitive functions that other animals do not have like imaginations and spatial thinking, possibly grammar. I don’t think that we can overcome these things because they are boundless. I liked how Ribofunk and Life Extreme have the theme of melding the worlds of technology and organic matter because the complication that arises from this melding allows us to identify and possibly protect what we can agree is special or untouchable about humanity. This gives us a starting point to ask the question of how much technology is permissible, how much manipulation is allowable, and if there is anything distinctly human we can identify then will we dare improve it or is it just not possible?

One more thing I liked about the Life Extreme is that it showed the possibilities of what modern biology can do for us. Some of the pictures may have been cruel (like the big cow that will be slaughtered) but it amazes me the extent to which technology has the power to feed us cloth us and make our lives longer. These improvements allow us to have more time and freedom to concentrate on things that do matter. They liberate us to attempt to do the things that will make us better people. These technological improvements are at least encouraging in a world full of suffering, no???

Ribofuk: the 50+1 Rule

After Ribofunk I am left wondering, when humans have the power to manipulate their physical appearance, do they remain human? Is there something transitive that remains in a human like a soul that defines what it is to be human? What, for example, would we say to the man who is 51% human? Framing it in that way makes us say “hey 51% they have crossed the line they are human” or maybe “they have not crossed the line yet” but this is paradoxical. This reminds me of the Ship of Theseus paradox, where the ship is kept the same because its parts are exchanged, this makes the question of is it still the same ship a kind of metaphor for humanity. What do we do when we have become 50% human? Where does that leave us parcial human certainly but is a human still a human if it is missing all of its parts? Is a dog human if it shares 21% of its genes with us? Is it even possible to be slightly human if all the parts are not there? If a human needed to reorganize their parts and cells and atoms to compose something more desirable would the human still be the same or would they be different. If my arm became a claw of the same materium would I still be the same human? What if all of me where reorganized to constitute something physically different composed of the same stuff? Maybe a dog with all human components. Have I changed my humanity or not? The human element has been reduced in this case to crucial components. But is that really the way humanity needs to bee looked at if we are to truly understand what a human is? Maybe a categorical analysis would be more useful. Say for instance your origins play a part in your humanity, do you remain human when your father and mother where humans but you are a computer? Maybe not entirely but it can be a part of what it means to be human. Lets add categories and say that you must have ape ancestry of which your current program is modeled after, then are you human? Maybe more so. But is that not too complicated? Are we not more simple animals than a series of ever growing categories distinguishing us from the other that are not human? The stories in Ribofunk make me wonder how our relationship with technology acts upon us in the way that prevents us from having control and how it acts upon us in the way it empowers us. I think about using the internet and think it is great and has without question unlocked our power to communicate (even if incompletely or in a different way) which is a powerful thing. On the other hand do we become so dependent upon the technology of internet communication that we are no longer able to function in its absence? Humans adapt quickly if tragedy strikes and our environments are drastically changed, we also adapt quickly when good fortune strikes and technology makes our lives better, just look at the learning curve on your modern day computer and the updates in the operating software. Now take that technology away. Are we better off for being exposed to cashiers and service professionals that use computers to perform their tasks more quickly(or the task becomes part computer) or are we weakened because we put our faith in the machine and when, not if, the machine malfunctions the entire system is disturbed? It reminds me of when I tried to order a burger from a fast food joint when the machine broke down. He said I can’t sell it to you, I said why not and he said the machine is broke. Ma and Pa burger joints use paper, does training or exposing ourselves to the use of awesome new technology widen the area for disaster that over reliance brings with it?
Maybe but as Ribofunk demonstrates we cannot escape it, the machine and us are one now.

Radical Alterity - War Games and the Destruction of the Earth

The very idea of alterity is essential in war because it separates and distances not horizontally but vertically the status and humanity of people, to make the war acceptable, justifiable, and necessary. Once this separation occurs the war is acceptable because those who are on the lower rung of the scale stand to loose less than those on the top. It is justifiable because the lower run poses a threat to the upper rung and the upper run must defend itself. The other, I do not believe, becomes an entity that is simply far away but rather way below. To squash an ant or worm becomes a kind of duty because it is other it is below and it is a nuisance. But it is interesting to me how that otherness played out in the film we watched about the Nazi enemy. It is as though the otherness of the Nazis causes us to use it as a function of our own response to it. By that I am talking about the way the cartoon preached against emotion and endorsed rationality and then in the end said rationality is what you should use to go to war and be patriotic, when really it was emotion we want all along. Like a bacterial splitting and then a tiny mutation causes them to be at odds. You then have bacterial colony warfare. The otherness does not simply distance us but in a way the distance becomes replication. It make some sense that if you focus on the otherness of someone and foster stronger and stronger feelings of dislike, you become no different than what you hate. How can you escape the influence of what you hate when it becomes such a large part of who you are on a day to day basis and consumes so much of your productive time?

By focusing on Japan and the bomb we get a picture of what alterity can do or mean for us in the context of punishing the other. We talked at some length about the idea that it was not possible to drop the bomb on Germany because they where white. I naturally disagree and state that it was a Geographical move that was more acceptable. You either drop the bomb on an island nation that is your enemy refuses to surrender and is not in any close proximity to friendly nations. Or you drop it on a hostile nation that is surrounded by friendly nations. Not a hard choice even though both are regrettable. Tony then raised the issue of the US first testing the bomb on ourselves, and the question was how do we reconcile that? How can we accept punishing the enemy by first testing the punishment on ourselves? Does that not make us the moral nation? Is it more acceptable to test on others first? Perhaps this gives us the moral high ground with which we can justify using the bomb on a hostile nation. Besides there was a sort of marriage that occurred with Japan when we destroyed their cities and brought the sun to their land. We now take upon ourselves the responsibility of rebuilding their country. If otherness is a problem then surely crafting a nation in our image is good for the human race. Indeed we can agree that this element of Japans misery may be worth it. The otherness turned itself into a friendly sibling rivalry where production not destruction was the measure of a successful nation. If only we could replicate this in the world today? Hmmmmm (IMF, World Bank??)

It also brings us the metaphor of bringing the sun to the earth. The destructive and creative powers we get are fantastic, and I think that when Baudrillard says that America has no origins and is a mythical society we can have a certain peace about its leaders having the destructive power of the earth. Do we want nationals who take pride in where they come from to have the power to destroy the other? Or would we rather have people who have no origin and no other options than tolerance to have the same power? The scary moments in history where when that power spread to people who have a collective national pride. They have no reason to create the other, the other exists and needs only challenge them, or rather respond to their already active challenge. There is no more common other than nationalism and to have a world where those nationals have the power to destroy creates an odd numbered tug of war where the object is to say up and should one person let go or slip their footing the entire world will fall. Perhaps we can take comfort knowing that at least the global movement powered by technology is changing the rules of that tug of war.

The Ticket That Exploded

Hard to follow the cut up sequence, you’re in the moment once and then, as if a cruel joke befalls you, bam you don’t understand what is happening because the cut up is so re-organized that you cannot make sense of it. It turns out that Burroughs wanted to use the cut up to make the case that the human animal is limited by speech and sound. Like a revolver will not surpass its limits because it has certain physical features that prevent it from lets say shooting faster (or doing its inherent purpose better) so too humans have trouble surpassing their limits because language is something of a set back because we can only accept the meaning we receive from it if it is palatable to us. I am left with a belief that Burroughs wants us to move on to bigger and better things, but aren’t our limitations what give us reason to move on? Are we not more human because of our limitations? Are we killing our humanity by altering our human conditions or are we improving upon them? I am still trying to make sense of the nudity and graphic homosexuality of the book. It seems like from class we came to an interesting question. Are we grossed out by the book because we have bodies and we are shy, bashful, embarrassed (human) about them, or are we offended because our bodies have us? I thought in some detail about this question and decided that we do in fact have bodies, and are not merely their slaves. I don’t have a particularly negative response to the nudity or sexuality of the book because I don’t fear that the book will upload some crazy world into my brain where I (or rather my body) need rectal mucus and sex skins to be happy, functional, and normal. I’m not convinced that the world will one day look like this because this is Burroughs perverted fantasy not the result of guided and unguided collective action. If this book has anything to say about the human condition it is that we revere it and defend it from the attack of others because we choose the way we want it to present itself, we are not fond of one pervert writing a book in cut up fashion about it, probably because his dreams do not equate our experience. On the issue of the recordings we have yet more difficult questions. So Burroughs asks why not record ourselves and then let the recordings do the difficult part of life for us, communicating with our enemies, our annoying roommates, whoever. Is letting a recording play out your ideas and hates as cathartic as actually doing it? In both cases we could say that we do speak what is on our mind and actually let it out, but to speak it into a recorder doesn’t teach us anything. I say the best part of confronting your adversaries is the lessons you can draw from the actual experience, far superior to the lessons drawn from the recording because interaction with man is what humans do, interactions with machines is what machines do. This is all well and fine in a post human world but whilst we are still humans we should interact with humans the way humans do, a sort of techno-segregation. I am on the side of actually doing things and interacting with people not machines. Then some may say wait isn’t interacting with machines what we do also? Like this computer blog? Didn’t you interact with the machine to do the blog? My answer is that I don’t interact with a hammer to build a fence; the computer is a tool I USE, not interact with for the purpose of interacting with other humans. In every case where humans are mechanizing we are not interacting with the machines we are using them for human ends and often to satisfy the human condition, or to improve it. Even a case like videogames, we are still interacting with humans. The program, storyline, and events where all derived from human activity. A videogame is like a book in a sense that it connects people more quickly than direct interaction and sometimes even transcends the lines of time because I can see what was going on in the past by reading a book or (this is a stretch) playing a videogame. Burroughs asks some interesting questions and makes us think about the way we interact and what are limitations are. I think that the value of his book is in its attention to the mechanism that allows us to experience each others humanity, or rather the overt violation of that mechanism and the constant pull push the book has on the reader with regards to the material. This book really has more to offer with the way in which it is written than the words that are actually in it.

The Invention of Morel

It seems that the Invention of Morel turned out to be a great book after class discussion. A complicated piece of work it took us through a sea of uncertainty about our poor narrator, only to disappoint us with an ending we shall deem, ordinary (but perhaps not in its' own time but rather ours). On a closer examination the book makes us ask tough questions about what it is that constitutes real and what it is to be an illusion. It kept picking at me as if a question I had the answer to but not the reasoning for, was Faustine’s world real or a just a recording no different than my tapes or maybe both. I kept thinking, and still do, that Faustine’s world is just a recording and that there is nothing metaphysically special about it. The world which Morel has created is just an imprint on some sort or storage device going through the automated motions the designer wished upon it. If it where anything more then Morel would have been a god but he is not, he is just a creator. An inventor as the title so nicely illustrates. The invention does not upload you but rather record you, so its entire purpose is to replay the past.
If he did travel to another world it does trouble me when the narrator decided to upload his image onto the one with Faustine. He had the regrettable, but nevertheless moral choice to make. Does he die gracefully till his root diet kills him, does he take his own life, or does he push himself onto the image of Faustine and company at the hope of love?
The answer to what do you do in this situation is a curious one. When you are confronted with a choice do you take charge of the situation, let it play out, or do the best you can and hope for the best given your similar ends different means? The narrator’s actions raise difficult questions. Namely what is the best strategy for life and how wiling are we to accept that other peoples choices for those strategies when they lead to observably the same conclusion? I find it hard to believe that if my choices are hold out long enough to die by malnutrition, die by suicide, or die by the poison of the machine with the chance I may live on as an image in a machine, that I may even consider doing anything but the first option. There is something unique about this world and the people and experiences in it that keeps people in this world. Any attempt that prolongs the chances of staying in it should be saluted.
What then of the value of knowing when is it a person’s time to go? We could say that it was just the narrator’s time. He did know that there was a chance that he would fall apart literally if he uploaded to the machine and did it anyways, but it was the radiation that killed him. And even more complicated it was Morel that made the invention, No we must hold the narrator responsible for his actions, with the foreknowledge of the dangers of the machine. This is not a defense mechanism but a consequent moral question and position. If the narrator wants to claim humanity on the basis that he gave his life to be with the image of the women he loves, because it was the best option of the few that he had remaining then we should be inclined to applaud the humanity of the child molester who kills himself in prison to avoid the same fate. The narrator lost his humanity the moment he stepped foot on the secluded island. The moment he thought a life of freedom in isolation is worth more than the interaction in society with possibility of persecution in society. Fear is a human emotion and he acted upon that in going to the island but so is courage which contrary to the vice of fear is a virtue. We would not applaud the molester for the same reason we will not applaud the narrator. Because if ever there was a crime against humanity it would to escape its scrutiny, to avoid its’ interactions in hiding, and to end ones life in a delusion of lust, forfeiting ones humanity in a calculated lunatics moment of human weakness.
We do however feel sympathy for him. Not so much for his actions but for his position. But we require more of humanity than what the narrator demonstrated was possible. We require dedication even in the darkest hours.