The illusion of anonymity that plurk/blogposts/other online profiles allows is a false one. In reaction to The Ticket That Exploded and The Filth the class expressed its disgust more readily and boldly online than in class. Perhaps this can attest to a kind of discomfort that stems from confronting sexuality in person. The class was built around online interaction. Naturally, people were more comfortable talking about things and expressing their ideas and thoughts about the readings online than in class throughout the course. If you then rope sexuality into the picture, raw, harsh, disturbing homoerotic sexuality at that, you get less rection in any medium because people just don't want to go there.
So the question is then why don't people want to go there? Perhaps it can be explained with a statement Cody made one day in class in reaction to The Ticket That Exploded referring to how people would feel about themselves if they were suddenly aroused by what they were reading in the book. I would imagine that if one found themselves aroused by the sexual encounters depicted in the work that one would not admit it, especially to a classroom or plurk site full of peers they hardly know, illusion of anonymity or not.
This brings me to the study of porn consumption in red states. Conservative political views can and often do go hand in hand with strict religious beliefs. The perfect example of this is the state of Utah. With the largest pornography consumption and being the state with easily the biggest religous affiliation, one has to question what correlation there is between porn, politics and religion. In strict religious communities sexuality in general is shunned. It is introduced as a restricted, sometimes evil act. This resistance to sexuality causes the youth of the community to be unaware of their own bodies. This in turn causes greater curiosity and porn is an easy answer for that curiosity. If you raise children to be ashamed of their bodies and their sexuality they are not going to explore it naturally, they'll do it secretly and they'll be dumb enough to pay for it.
This resistance to sexuality spawns from restrictions placed by society. This is exactly what Burroughs and Mores are calling into question with their works. Burroughs forces us to confront the resistance we have to homosexuality. Had his work been packed with heterosexual sex I don't doubt it have sold more copies out of pornographic attraction. Instead he forces us to ask ourselves why are we disgusted by this? The answer, or a small part of it at least, has to do with our resistance to sexuality, in particular to homosexuality.
Mores includes a fair amount of pornography forcing us to question our societies approach to it and the role it plays in our lives. Pornography works because it is a secret way for one to fulfill their sexual desires without risking being judged. It offers an individualized sexual experience that can be done in secret. It's also easier than having to lure a mate. It is all well and good in our society because we keep it under wraps, like we do with our own bodies. It is only when someone like Mores has the courage to reveal and question our addiction to it that people call it outrageous. Pornography is accepted under the veil of anonymity. It is the answer to the frustration religion and conserative politics forces on its members.
Tuesday, March 17, 2009
Monday, March 16, 2009
Essay 4: Blogs
In searching for another blog to read and compare my own nanotext adventure with I found myself hunting for someone with a lot of posts. I wanted to specifically compare/contrast my own readings of the material with theirs. However as I began to read the blogs of the people with a great amount of posts I found myself getting either bored or annoyed. The majority of the posts were either summaries of the books I had read, in which case I didn't care at all to read what I had already read in the actual text, or they were annoying rambles that didn't interest me in the least. http://goodstvn.blogspot.com/ interested me the most simply because he didn't mess around with barfing the text back out. There aren't many posts about the texts, but what I did find I could not help but compare myself to.
Stvn's post about The Ticket that Exploded was very interesting to me because his reaction to it was so different from mine. He exclaims "Where are the women?!" in response to the obscene amount of rectal mucus found in the work. This was interesting to me because through out the work I never questioned why there weren't women included but accepted that the work was based on a homosexual society. Was this just a horny young guy's reaction to the work, or did it speak even further to the message that Burroughs was giving in his work?
My reaction to the amount of gruesome homosexual sex was a revelation the Burroughs was showing just how numb, or "clear", our society was becoming to sex and hate and violence in real life. I viewed it more as a finger pointed at the desensitized nation we had become in the wake of over-exposure. This also extends to the inability to accept any kind of homosexual life in a modern society, let alone one as erotic and masculine as portrayed in the work. Stvn seemed unable to see past the lack of women. This seems to be exactly what Burroughs was trying to point out: that we cannot handle a work like this because we cannot handle including homosexuality. This is not to say that Stvn is some raging homophobe, but more a slight jest at the irony of his reaction.
That being said, I have to credit Stvn's perceptiveness to the idea of different levels of reality. I took this post to encompass the reality of the characters in the work in relation to the reality they were, or were not, living in. The characters seemed to be real enough though the way the work was written allowed for very little exposure to the real workings of the society they lived in. The fact that I was unable to get a real feel for the society made me question the reality of it. This led me to think that the lack of reality was a point of Burroughs: mainly that reality in a societal sense is in the control of the character. Each character had their own perception of what the real society was and how it functioned. Though I'm sure they can all agree it had largely to do with sex and green boys. In any regards, I think Stvn was touching on this idea briefly when he mentioned the levels of reality in the work.
The post that really interested me was http://goodstvn.blogspot.com/2009/02/ribofunk-ending-god-particle-urb.html. Stvn's reaction to the ending of Ribofunk was much like my own in that he could not help but make the connection of the Urb to some sort of "God Particle" in our own society. At one level his post relates back to the Post-Modern Fable in that it addresses the level at which everything within the human experience happens. The minuscule model of reality is baffling in that it seems so big because it produces what we perceive as things of gargantuan proportions (mountains and oceans). However, the scale is quite small. This ties back to the theory that energy is not a product of the human but rather humans are nothing more than a product (and a temporary one at that) of energy.
Stvn and I both tied the Urb back to some kind of underlying notion of God. I compared it to a much more religious alternative; the Catholic God, whereas Stvn used National Geographic's article on the God Particle being an underlying force to all of life. Stvn took the next step where I finished by including what I thought was a very clever idea of sincerity to the idea of melting all of existence together into one Urb. Stvn points out that the class was more or less striving to become one whole "plurk organism". He hints at a kind of loneliness in a present day society and accusing it of being a "random disassociated existence". It then seems that this ulta-combined kind of living the Urb creates, a kind of melting together of being and experience, is an improvement like Stvn points out. All that is necessary to make it work is sincerity. It seems that with sincerity, humanity can exist peacefully in such a condition.
Stvn and I had similar ideas throughout the course, though his blog was able to direct my thought in a way it hadn't been before which I appreciated.
Stvn's post about The Ticket that Exploded was very interesting to me because his reaction to it was so different from mine. He exclaims "Where are the women?!" in response to the obscene amount of rectal mucus found in the work. This was interesting to me because through out the work I never questioned why there weren't women included but accepted that the work was based on a homosexual society. Was this just a horny young guy's reaction to the work, or did it speak even further to the message that Burroughs was giving in his work?
My reaction to the amount of gruesome homosexual sex was a revelation the Burroughs was showing just how numb, or "clear", our society was becoming to sex and hate and violence in real life. I viewed it more as a finger pointed at the desensitized nation we had become in the wake of over-exposure. This also extends to the inability to accept any kind of homosexual life in a modern society, let alone one as erotic and masculine as portrayed in the work. Stvn seemed unable to see past the lack of women. This seems to be exactly what Burroughs was trying to point out: that we cannot handle a work like this because we cannot handle including homosexuality. This is not to say that Stvn is some raging homophobe, but more a slight jest at the irony of his reaction.
That being said, I have to credit Stvn's perceptiveness to the idea of different levels of reality. I took this post to encompass the reality of the characters in the work in relation to the reality they were, or were not, living in. The characters seemed to be real enough though the way the work was written allowed for very little exposure to the real workings of the society they lived in. The fact that I was unable to get a real feel for the society made me question the reality of it. This led me to think that the lack of reality was a point of Burroughs: mainly that reality in a societal sense is in the control of the character. Each character had their own perception of what the real society was and how it functioned. Though I'm sure they can all agree it had largely to do with sex and green boys. In any regards, I think Stvn was touching on this idea briefly when he mentioned the levels of reality in the work.
The post that really interested me was http://goodstvn.blogspot.com/2009/02/ribofunk-ending-god-particle-urb.html. Stvn's reaction to the ending of Ribofunk was much like my own in that he could not help but make the connection of the Urb to some sort of "God Particle" in our own society. At one level his post relates back to the Post-Modern Fable in that it addresses the level at which everything within the human experience happens. The minuscule model of reality is baffling in that it seems so big because it produces what we perceive as things of gargantuan proportions (mountains and oceans). However, the scale is quite small. This ties back to the theory that energy is not a product of the human but rather humans are nothing more than a product (and a temporary one at that) of energy.
Stvn and I both tied the Urb back to some kind of underlying notion of God. I compared it to a much more religious alternative; the Catholic God, whereas Stvn used National Geographic's article on the God Particle being an underlying force to all of life. Stvn took the next step where I finished by including what I thought was a very clever idea of sincerity to the idea of melting all of existence together into one Urb. Stvn points out that the class was more or less striving to become one whole "plurk organism". He hints at a kind of loneliness in a present day society and accusing it of being a "random disassociated existence". It then seems that this ulta-combined kind of living the Urb creates, a kind of melting together of being and experience, is an improvement like Stvn points out. All that is necessary to make it work is sincerity. It seems that with sincerity, humanity can exist peacefully in such a condition.
Stvn and I had similar ideas throughout the course, though his blog was able to direct my thought in a way it hadn't been before which I appreciated.
Essay 3: Limits
In exploring the limits and possibilities of the small plurk forced me to examine exactly what I was doing with the words I was using. Literarily and linguistically the small brandishes a certain kind of power. This power is not automatic in that when one writes as little as possible one does not always say as much as possible. The power is in the hand of the writer, the wielder of language. Naturally, when given a limited amount of space with an excess amount of material, one tries to fit as much as possible into the space. One bends and moves the material, manipulates it to fit; so too with language and plurk. With only 140 characters I was forced to boil down what I wanted to say to the meat of the idea and furnish it with the most effective words.
The plurk exercise that utilized this best was the pataphrase. Though mine was more than 140 characters, the number of characters it required was a small price to pay for what the structure allowed me to convey. Specific and calculated word choice allowed me to give the reader a complete notion of the rise, fall and future of a relationship and the reason behind it. The form of comparison the pataphrase called for allows for the insertion of more metaphoric background to the characters.
The pataphrase helped to open my mind to the possibilities of the small and in turn the possibilities of a limited space like plurk. The poem exercises, particularly the snowball poem really made me examine my writing word for word. Not so much the lack of space but more the regulations on what space I was allotted made the exercise hard. Language had to be examined at a very basic level and I had to decide what words would carry what inflections and ideas to the reader. The choice of words was limited because I had to pick words with a certain number of letters. This was scary because I no longer had complete control. For once I had to allow the language to work itself out on its own. By this I mean I had a limited number of words I could use for each line so I was more or less forced to insert words where I would not necessarily want them. This, however, wound up being beneficial because the words still related and fed of each other’s meanings, just in slightly different ways. In fact the difference was something I came to appreciate: the order of verb in relation to adjective, for example, changed but brought on a whole new meaning, not different, but its own.
The last example I want to examine in terms of working with the small was the youtube poem. Words were used the least in this poem and yet I feel like it said the most, or at least had the potential to. Here we also see not only the tie between technology and language/linguistic expression, but also a use of a pataphoric style of writing. By posting a link to a youtube video the poet was able to make a very surface poem, namely configured by the names of the videos in succession. However, the link opened up another level of expression in that the video itself could be part of the poem, say if the video had a scene or motif relative to the reader personally or the subject material of the poem. The band of the music video or the actor in the skit can also be a reference point to which the poet could tie the reader by some form of relevance either to the reader themselves or to the content of the poem. All this can be done in virtually no words, no characters, just web links. This is a very strong example of utilizing the least amount of space to convey the most amount of material or ideas.
Plurk made me more creative with my writing and more critical. I had to explore all my options (ie web links, videos, words, smiley faces, dancing fruit) to chose how to effectively convey my point. I was not simply telling the reader what I thought but more striving to immerse them in a notion, a complete thought process they could experience rather than read. This examination and experimentation with the small made my writing better simply because I was more efficient. It forced me to refine my technique, to change and adapt my style to the space confines I encountered. Instead of cutting things out, simply opening the space into another level and allowing the reader to follow the path.
The plurk exercise that utilized this best was the pataphrase. Though mine was more than 140 characters, the number of characters it required was a small price to pay for what the structure allowed me to convey. Specific and calculated word choice allowed me to give the reader a complete notion of the rise, fall and future of a relationship and the reason behind it. The form of comparison the pataphrase called for allows for the insertion of more metaphoric background to the characters.
The pataphrase helped to open my mind to the possibilities of the small and in turn the possibilities of a limited space like plurk. The poem exercises, particularly the snowball poem really made me examine my writing word for word. Not so much the lack of space but more the regulations on what space I was allotted made the exercise hard. Language had to be examined at a very basic level and I had to decide what words would carry what inflections and ideas to the reader. The choice of words was limited because I had to pick words with a certain number of letters. This was scary because I no longer had complete control. For once I had to allow the language to work itself out on its own. By this I mean I had a limited number of words I could use for each line so I was more or less forced to insert words where I would not necessarily want them. This, however, wound up being beneficial because the words still related and fed of each other’s meanings, just in slightly different ways. In fact the difference was something I came to appreciate: the order of verb in relation to adjective, for example, changed but brought on a whole new meaning, not different, but its own.
The last example I want to examine in terms of working with the small was the youtube poem. Words were used the least in this poem and yet I feel like it said the most, or at least had the potential to. Here we also see not only the tie between technology and language/linguistic expression, but also a use of a pataphoric style of writing. By posting a link to a youtube video the poet was able to make a very surface poem, namely configured by the names of the videos in succession. However, the link opened up another level of expression in that the video itself could be part of the poem, say if the video had a scene or motif relative to the reader personally or the subject material of the poem. The band of the music video or the actor in the skit can also be a reference point to which the poet could tie the reader by some form of relevance either to the reader themselves or to the content of the poem. All this can be done in virtually no words, no characters, just web links. This is a very strong example of utilizing the least amount of space to convey the most amount of material or ideas.
Plurk made me more creative with my writing and more critical. I had to explore all my options (ie web links, videos, words, smiley faces, dancing fruit) to chose how to effectively convey my point. I was not simply telling the reader what I thought but more striving to immerse them in a notion, a complete thought process they could experience rather than read. This examination and experimentation with the small made my writing better simply because I was more efficient. It forced me to refine my technique, to change and adapt my style to the space confines I encountered. Instead of cutting things out, simply opening the space into another level and allowing the reader to follow the path.
Essay 2: Animals vs Machines
For the sake of argument I will define a machine as something created by human beings to serve a purpose or meet a desired end more efficiently than can be done by the human itself. Machines are the spawn of the love affair humans have been engaging in with technology more or less since the beginning of their existence. It is true that technology has made the human experience easier, faster, more efficient, and longer. In fact the human being has become so advanced in its exploration of the bounds of technology that it has become able to use it to make the machines held so dear more “lifelike”. What is this human desire to create machines that resemble life? Hollywood portrays a future of household robots that will be just another member of the family (ie “The Jestons” and Bicentennial Man). In Life Extreme, Mary Shelley is quoted: “My companion must be of the same defects. This being you must create…” (62). Humans desire companionship. We then use the technology we love so much to create that companionship. We work to breathe life into machines so that we can make the offspring of our love affair with technology as human-like as possible.
Furthering this idea of companionship, Life Extreme also highlights the amity humans seek from animals as well. Cats are the ultimate home accessory (94) and dogs offer the loyal and trusting companionship man grounds himself in (22) and even defines himself by: “ I am I because my little dog knows me” (21). However, humans cannot just enjoy animals as they happen in nature. For humans to really enjoy animals, to utilize them as best as possible, we have to domesticate them. Avital Ronell even points out that we apply this idea of forced change on those we live with, humans and animal alike: “It has to do with that violence of adaptation, of ‘training’ which is not limited to animals…I do to the other what one does in the cattery with the sphinx. I try to create people who can live with me” (55). So humans do not only desire companionship alone, but they want said companionship to be domesticated as much as possible to fit the confines of their ideal home and life.
It is undeniable that humans are the superior life forms on Earth. As the superior beings, humans have a tendency to exert their ascendency on all other life forms and the world itself. One might call this a raw case of survival of the fittest; as animals themselves, humans are merely working to keep ahead of the competitive curb, lest we are outsourced by another species. However, trends in human history reveal a different motivation. Literarily, Ronell argues that humans work to compartmentalize the world around them. This is why language has developed: to define and regulate that which is seen and experienced: “Language is returned to recognizable domains, its habitual comfort zones, without raising questions about the violence and lacerations done to it” (12).
Coupling this idea of desired control and recognition in the natural world with the idea of creating companionship with, by, from, and through animals and technology, humans create the ultimate contradiction in that out of our desire to categorize and assimilate, we create that which defies both. Humans use their superiority and the little power that comes with it to assimilate the world to serve them. Altering animals and creating machines to fit our liking, we combine technology and nature until we have unnatural animals (79) and animalistic technology. The result being a hybrid between the two we cannot categorize: “Both language and being are struck by the mutations before us…Language itself balks and recedes, regressing into old habits and obsolesced paradigms. In a way we are dealing with the drama of the referent where the positing power of language seems momentarily disabled…” (12).
Relative to animals, humans are only one more step in evolution. Humans, if not already, are very close to grossly overstepping the bounds of their role in nature. By our own wants and desires we are bringing the natural world and our lover technology into a head on collision and we will not be the only ones to feel the repercussions. Thanks to the human being animals and machines are becoming more and more synonymous in their use and application. It is when we bring the two to an indistinguishable level that we will know how far we have gone: “There is no rewind button on the betamax of life. An important event takes place only once” (78).
Furthering this idea of companionship, Life Extreme also highlights the amity humans seek from animals as well. Cats are the ultimate home accessory (94) and dogs offer the loyal and trusting companionship man grounds himself in (22) and even defines himself by: “ I am I because my little dog knows me” (21). However, humans cannot just enjoy animals as they happen in nature. For humans to really enjoy animals, to utilize them as best as possible, we have to domesticate them. Avital Ronell even points out that we apply this idea of forced change on those we live with, humans and animal alike: “It has to do with that violence of adaptation, of ‘training’ which is not limited to animals…I do to the other what one does in the cattery with the sphinx. I try to create people who can live with me” (55). So humans do not only desire companionship alone, but they want said companionship to be domesticated as much as possible to fit the confines of their ideal home and life.
It is undeniable that humans are the superior life forms on Earth. As the superior beings, humans have a tendency to exert their ascendency on all other life forms and the world itself. One might call this a raw case of survival of the fittest; as animals themselves, humans are merely working to keep ahead of the competitive curb, lest we are outsourced by another species. However, trends in human history reveal a different motivation. Literarily, Ronell argues that humans work to compartmentalize the world around them. This is why language has developed: to define and regulate that which is seen and experienced: “Language is returned to recognizable domains, its habitual comfort zones, without raising questions about the violence and lacerations done to it” (12).
Coupling this idea of desired control and recognition in the natural world with the idea of creating companionship with, by, from, and through animals and technology, humans create the ultimate contradiction in that out of our desire to categorize and assimilate, we create that which defies both. Humans use their superiority and the little power that comes with it to assimilate the world to serve them. Altering animals and creating machines to fit our liking, we combine technology and nature until we have unnatural animals (79) and animalistic technology. The result being a hybrid between the two we cannot categorize: “Both language and being are struck by the mutations before us…Language itself balks and recedes, regressing into old habits and obsolesced paradigms. In a way we are dealing with the drama of the referent where the positing power of language seems momentarily disabled…” (12).
Relative to animals, humans are only one more step in evolution. Humans, if not already, are very close to grossly overstepping the bounds of their role in nature. By our own wants and desires we are bringing the natural world and our lover technology into a head on collision and we will not be the only ones to feel the repercussions. Thanks to the human being animals and machines are becoming more and more synonymous in their use and application. It is when we bring the two to an indistinguishable level that we will know how far we have gone: “There is no rewind button on the betamax of life. An important event takes place only once” (78).
Essay 1: Plurk
When I was trying to explain to my brother that I would not actually be turning anything in all quarter for my English class and that all my assignments would be in blog form and in the context of some new mysterious website called plurk, his first question was how would my writing improve? His rationale, which was valid, was that when one blogs, one tends to spew. One’s thoughts don’t necessarily have to be well organized or punctuated or even thoroughly examined. So how could one expect a student to write anything or worth in such a lackadaisical setting? Applying this theory to plurk; how can one effectively present ones ideas if one only has 140 characters to do so and is doing it in a chat-room set up? My response: exactly.
Plurk is the literary form of the nanotechnology we have read about in The Ticket that Exploded, Ribofunk, Postsingular, The Filth and many others. In the same way nanotechnology uses the small to wield big power, plurk forces one to write as minimally as possible while still packing the same kind of punch into what one has to say. I draw your attention to my blog entitled “The Power of the Small”. Here I argue that the power of the English language lies in the word. Each word carries with it a plethora of meanings and memories and innuendoes the one reading it attaches to it; subconsciously or not. Being able to wield as few words or images together to make a multi-layered statement is the power one gets from plurk. One is forced to boil ones thoughts down and express them in words that will carry the most weight.
An example of powerful plurking is the last plurk by nanotext on March 12, 2009. The plurk was a simple “bye” that ended the quarter and the class session. This single word plurk was powerful because of its informality. There was no heart-felt speech or long and drawn out goodbye. It was done in a medium and context that was familiar to the audience making it accessible. Nanotext had a deep sense of how the audience felt in relation to the class, even shared their attachment, thus giving him the knowledge that a short and simple farewell would leave the audience with a wealth of unexposed emotion. This method was much more effective than say a long and drawn out speech in which all the emotions and thoughts and feelings were exposed because it left every member with their own individual perception of the class and the last words of the professor.
Knowing one’s audience is important in the manipulation of the English language. Of course this is achieved in a completely new and different way on plurk. What I find so attractive about online profiles and mediums such as plurk, is that it offers a space where I can calculate how those who will read my posts will perceive me. Is that not what we, as a culture, enjoy about presenting ourselves on the internet? It is by no means a candid portrayal but instead a well calculated and prepared one.
By this same token there is a strange comfort to talking to a name and not a face. The lack of physical presence on plurk is somewhat refreshing because one then has the ability to present oneself and ones ideas in a creative and attractive way: one that can be tweeked and changed to be perceived in the exact way the plurker intends it to be. This goes back to the perception of oneself being carefully calculated as well.
The human body can be rather intimidating. Having to present oneself to another human with the probability that ones thoughts may not be well received or agreed with is nerve-racking, at least in some small way. This is where plurk comes in. We, as students, do not have to worry about offending another person to their face. We can hide behind the anonymity of whatever clever nickname we carefully plan for ourselves and hope the one we offend does not match our profile picture to us in class.
This same kind of faceless comfort is what emboldens the fugitive in The Invention or Morel. As he becomes more and more aware of his inexistence to the others on the island he becomes more courageous in his love for Faustine. I have to speculate that he would not have yelled that he loved her to Faustine had he not been confident that neither she nor any of her companions would here him. It is this anonymity offered by plurk that makes us bold enough to say what we want. Plurk is a branch of technology that makes those too shy to speak out in class able to contribute.
Plurk forces one to write small by thinking big. It creates a kind of reality in which the small carries the most weight. Nanotechnology showcases this same principle in that the smallest technology can and does and will create the most havoc. As seen in Postsingular, the nants and the orphids are small individually but have the potential to radically change the way human beings live their lives: the power is in the small. By expanding ones thoughts and examining the power of the individual word within the English language, one applies the theory of small strength in nanotechnology to expression through language. For our class, plurk was the application of the theories of power in nanotechnology to literary expression.
Plurk is the literary form of the nanotechnology we have read about in The Ticket that Exploded, Ribofunk, Postsingular, The Filth and many others. In the same way nanotechnology uses the small to wield big power, plurk forces one to write as minimally as possible while still packing the same kind of punch into what one has to say. I draw your attention to my blog entitled “The Power of the Small”. Here I argue that the power of the English language lies in the word. Each word carries with it a plethora of meanings and memories and innuendoes the one reading it attaches to it; subconsciously or not. Being able to wield as few words or images together to make a multi-layered statement is the power one gets from plurk. One is forced to boil ones thoughts down and express them in words that will carry the most weight.
An example of powerful plurking is the last plurk by nanotext on March 12, 2009. The plurk was a simple “bye” that ended the quarter and the class session. This single word plurk was powerful because of its informality. There was no heart-felt speech or long and drawn out goodbye. It was done in a medium and context that was familiar to the audience making it accessible. Nanotext had a deep sense of how the audience felt in relation to the class, even shared their attachment, thus giving him the knowledge that a short and simple farewell would leave the audience with a wealth of unexposed emotion. This method was much more effective than say a long and drawn out speech in which all the emotions and thoughts and feelings were exposed because it left every member with their own individual perception of the class and the last words of the professor.
Knowing one’s audience is important in the manipulation of the English language. Of course this is achieved in a completely new and different way on plurk. What I find so attractive about online profiles and mediums such as plurk, is that it offers a space where I can calculate how those who will read my posts will perceive me. Is that not what we, as a culture, enjoy about presenting ourselves on the internet? It is by no means a candid portrayal but instead a well calculated and prepared one.
By this same token there is a strange comfort to talking to a name and not a face. The lack of physical presence on plurk is somewhat refreshing because one then has the ability to present oneself and ones ideas in a creative and attractive way: one that can be tweeked and changed to be perceived in the exact way the plurker intends it to be. This goes back to the perception of oneself being carefully calculated as well.
The human body can be rather intimidating. Having to present oneself to another human with the probability that ones thoughts may not be well received or agreed with is nerve-racking, at least in some small way. This is where plurk comes in. We, as students, do not have to worry about offending another person to their face. We can hide behind the anonymity of whatever clever nickname we carefully plan for ourselves and hope the one we offend does not match our profile picture to us in class.
This same kind of faceless comfort is what emboldens the fugitive in The Invention or Morel. As he becomes more and more aware of his inexistence to the others on the island he becomes more courageous in his love for Faustine. I have to speculate that he would not have yelled that he loved her to Faustine had he not been confident that neither she nor any of her companions would here him. It is this anonymity offered by plurk that makes us bold enough to say what we want. Plurk is a branch of technology that makes those too shy to speak out in class able to contribute.
Plurk forces one to write small by thinking big. It creates a kind of reality in which the small carries the most weight. Nanotechnology showcases this same principle in that the smallest technology can and does and will create the most havoc. As seen in Postsingular, the nants and the orphids are small individually but have the potential to radically change the way human beings live their lives: the power is in the small. By expanding ones thoughts and examining the power of the individual word within the English language, one applies the theory of small strength in nanotechnology to expression through language. For our class, plurk was the application of the theories of power in nanotechnology to literary expression.
Thursday, March 12, 2009
parasites
After our talk of parasites in class today i have to wonder why parasites are considered bad. harmful, i understand, but why bad? they, like tony said, are eating next to us. they are living.
i find it strange that we consider them bad because we are harmed by them when we do an awful lot of harm to other animals and yet we think it good. why is it good? because usually we use itfor food, for sustainance. how is a parasite any different? we don't give anything to those we kill and eat. the parasite doesnt give us anything good while it feeds off of us.
we have the know-how and the brain power to prevent and destroy a possible parasite that is feeding on us, that perhaps justifies our ill-will toward it. we are the superior beings, how dare it feed on us?
i find it strange that we consider them bad because we are harmed by them when we do an awful lot of harm to other animals and yet we think it good. why is it good? because usually we use itfor food, for sustainance. how is a parasite any different? we don't give anything to those we kill and eat. the parasite doesnt give us anything good while it feeds off of us.
we have the know-how and the brain power to prevent and destroy a possible parasite that is feeding on us, that perhaps justifies our ill-will toward it. we are the superior beings, how dare it feed on us?
On art and technology
On page 174 Azaroth tells Thuy to write about the knot, that it might help her remember the pattern so she can remember the jump sequence between branes. he says"Art's the way to know what you don't."
Focusing on the quote itself, this beings me back to my idea of art being the downfall of the human race. Of course this sounds all very dramatic and negative and sad but hear me out. Art is self-expression. I find that art is a way to know yourself, your capabilities and your limits. And what can be more enticing to work harder and to do better than to know your limits? If you know you can't so do something, don't you want to learn to do it? For the sake of argument, we'll call it a power trip-one wants what one can't have and wants to control what one cannot. Art then is self-expression turned self-examination turned self-propulsion in that it drives us to push our own limits. I'm thinking of Jeff Luty and the Nants. He constantly wants to create new and better nants.
This sounds familiar, does it not? This idea of finding new art forms, new mediums, new and better ways of expressing oneself is seen in technology as well. I then ask, where is the line between art and technology? Were we to make robots as seen on the Jetsons to serve us in our homes, maybe even be a companion to us, like little worker for example, would we not want one that looked a certain way, maybe matched the carpets and furniture or maybe looked a little like the rest of the family or maybe was just attractive in general. We can choose the colors of our computers and our cell-phones: what is this but using technology as a way to express ourselves in the same way we would through art.
Now i turn to technology and it's rapid growth. The Singularity very well may be just around the corner and as I have said numerous times before, we only have ourselves to blame, or thank, depending on how you look at it. Through this drive to express and know ourselves and our limits and to blow past them, we have put ourselves in this state of singularity. We have the power to, if we haven't already, create the technology that will destroy us.
I argue that the beauty and the ingenuity of technology is a branch from the great and glorious tree of art and that it will be the downfall of the human race. I might even go so far as to say it's worth it. I think we are constantly finding new ways to apply our ability to reason and we are constantly finding new ways to build and to create. Would it not be a waste of our capabilities if we didn't go this far? We all die, why not go for the gusto while we can? Sure art births technology which is going on turn the world on its head, burn us all alive, rape our children and enslave our grandchildren, but wasn't it one hell of a ride?
Focusing on the quote itself, this beings me back to my idea of art being the downfall of the human race. Of course this sounds all very dramatic and negative and sad but hear me out. Art is self-expression. I find that art is a way to know yourself, your capabilities and your limits. And what can be more enticing to work harder and to do better than to know your limits? If you know you can't so do something, don't you want to learn to do it? For the sake of argument, we'll call it a power trip-one wants what one can't have and wants to control what one cannot. Art then is self-expression turned self-examination turned self-propulsion in that it drives us to push our own limits. I'm thinking of Jeff Luty and the Nants. He constantly wants to create new and better nants.
This sounds familiar, does it not? This idea of finding new art forms, new mediums, new and better ways of expressing oneself is seen in technology as well. I then ask, where is the line between art and technology? Were we to make robots as seen on the Jetsons to serve us in our homes, maybe even be a companion to us, like little worker for example, would we not want one that looked a certain way, maybe matched the carpets and furniture or maybe looked a little like the rest of the family or maybe was just attractive in general. We can choose the colors of our computers and our cell-phones: what is this but using technology as a way to express ourselves in the same way we would through art.
Now i turn to technology and it's rapid growth. The Singularity very well may be just around the corner and as I have said numerous times before, we only have ourselves to blame, or thank, depending on how you look at it. Through this drive to express and know ourselves and our limits and to blow past them, we have put ourselves in this state of singularity. We have the power to, if we haven't already, create the technology that will destroy us.
I argue that the beauty and the ingenuity of technology is a branch from the great and glorious tree of art and that it will be the downfall of the human race. I might even go so far as to say it's worth it. I think we are constantly finding new ways to apply our ability to reason and we are constantly finding new ways to build and to create. Would it not be a waste of our capabilities if we didn't go this far? We all die, why not go for the gusto while we can? Sure art births technology which is going on turn the world on its head, burn us all alive, rape our children and enslave our grandchildren, but wasn't it one hell of a ride?
Tuesday, March 10, 2009
When I grow up I want to be a blowback
Say you create a metanovel in which you create a completely fictional character. They can contact you. This I understand. They can ask you questions tell you stories, essentially you can create a new member of your life.
What if you include a character in your metanovel that is based on someone you already know? Will there be two of the same people in the world; by which I mean the original(the person the character is based on) and the character copy you create. What if the copy had some tweeks you add to make the character more interesting, would the original be bitter they weren't good enough? Would the copy know they were better than the original? Can the copy contact anyone else or just the author? Would the copy consider the wuthor to be their creator? Their God? Wouldn't the author be able to create a whole army of characters? Would the character created in reflection of an actual human be able to contact more than just the author since the character was not an original idea of the author?
What if you include a character in your metanovel that is based on someone you already know? Will there be two of the same people in the world; by which I mean the original(the person the character is based on) and the character copy you create. What if the copy had some tweeks you add to make the character more interesting, would the original be bitter they weren't good enough? Would the copy know they were better than the original? Can the copy contact anyone else or just the author? Would the copy consider the wuthor to be their creator? Their God? Wouldn't the author be able to create a whole army of characters? Would the character created in reflection of an actual human be able to contact more than just the author since the character was not an original idea of the author?
Tuesday, March 3, 2009
the power of the small
In Postsingular we see a technology that isn't really new in our exploration of the singularity and our talk about the technology explosion we've seen. It's nanorobotics taking over the world--nothing new. But it all got me thinking about the idea of the small this class and my blog is named after. Though I'll admit I'm not very good at writing small or taking the time to organize my thoughts into smaller more effective packages, I understand it and i respect it.
This idea of the small in language is what makes me love Literature and the ability to wrestle with language and produce something that speaks of and to you ina completely different way than it will to those who read it. The power of language lies in the word. A single word can and does mean something of infinite proportions to different people. A single word, which I consider to be rather small, depending on the FONT of course, carries with it a lifetime of affiliations and innuendos each individual has assigned it. So a single word has infinite ability and power.
Postsingular also showcases this idea of small and the power given to it by those who wield it. The nants are small, no doubt about it. But they take over the world. It is the folly of the human race to think that we can control that which we create. That we can control whatever is smaller than us. This will be our ultimate downfall: overestimating ourselves and underestimating the small.
In Postsingular the small created a new world that humans can barely comprehend. The nants and the orphids alike opened up completely new worlds to the human race. The smaller the technology the bigger the idea and the harder it is to understand it, let alone control it.
The deception of what is physically small lies in the magnitude of the idea it forges. A single word can lead ones mind to a million other words/ideas/memories/thoughts/feelings. A single orphid can lead to a whole nother world.
smaller is bigger and there will be a time our minds will not be able to handle what vastness of the idea our small has created like Nakter was not able to handle the nants.
This idea of the small in language is what makes me love Literature and the ability to wrestle with language and produce something that speaks of and to you ina completely different way than it will to those who read it. The power of language lies in the word. A single word can and does mean something of infinite proportions to different people. A single word, which I consider to be rather small, depending on the FONT of course, carries with it a lifetime of affiliations and innuendos each individual has assigned it. So a single word has infinite ability and power.
Postsingular also showcases this idea of small and the power given to it by those who wield it. The nants are small, no doubt about it. But they take over the world. It is the folly of the human race to think that we can control that which we create. That we can control whatever is smaller than us. This will be our ultimate downfall: overestimating ourselves and underestimating the small.
In Postsingular the small created a new world that humans can barely comprehend. The nants and the orphids alike opened up completely new worlds to the human race. The smaller the technology the bigger the idea and the harder it is to understand it, let alone control it.
The deception of what is physically small lies in the magnitude of the idea it forges. A single word can lead ones mind to a million other words/ideas/memories/thoughts/feelings. A single orphid can lead to a whole nother world.
smaller is bigger and there will be a time our minds will not be able to handle what vastness of the idea our small has created like Nakter was not able to handle the nants.
Thursday, February 26, 2009
Ignorance is bliss and some other unrelated thoughts
I chose not to live like I'm being watched because I don't care. When I think about it, I don't really care if I'm being watched as long as I don't know. I'll keep living the same way I have and in the end if it all turns out to be one giant conspiracy or if it turns out my life was a TV show for eveyones entertainment well then, you're welcome. The way I see it I can still say I enjoyed all the moments you saw in the same degree and I still learned the same things about myself. Even if I am just a remake of another Claire Miller out of a vile in the back of some chemical shop, I'm having a good time of it all.
In other news, the application of the small is the way we grow. In being forced to write smaller we are forced to think bigger. We act bigger by portraying ourselves on online profiles and plurk pages. Maybe one doesnt see a problem with acting publicly as if one is being watched because one likes the attention. Is it you don't care, or that you care more than anything? The human being wants to preserve itself. We want others to watch and see and talk and be interested in what we have to say because that makes us interesting.
The Filth is the grime our desire for attention leaves caked to our minds and bodies and drips from our actions.
We are watched, therefore we are.
In other news, the application of the small is the way we grow. In being forced to write smaller we are forced to think bigger. We act bigger by portraying ourselves on online profiles and plurk pages. Maybe one doesnt see a problem with acting publicly as if one is being watched because one likes the attention. Is it you don't care, or that you care more than anything? The human being wants to preserve itself. We want others to watch and see and talk and be interested in what we have to say because that makes us interesting.
The Filth is the grime our desire for attention leaves caked to our minds and bodies and drips from our actions.
We are watched, therefore we are.
Thursday, February 12, 2009
Ribofunkalicious
First let me just say that I have SO many thoughts about Ribofunk. This is going to be a scattered blog but I would rather spew now and cover everything then wait to organize my thoughts and leave something out.
First of all, on finishing the work, which I thought was brilliant, I could not help but see some form of "God" in the Urb. I was raised Catholic and maybe it's 13 years of Catholic education that has burned that into my psyche and the way in which I read things but I couldn't help but correlate an omnipresent being of divine power and almost humble intentions to the idea of a Catholic God.God is supposed to be everywhere and a part of everything and is this not what we see in the Urb? It took over at such a rate, waiting until it had the power to take the characters completely by surprise until it struck, leaving them unable to defy it or even think about whether or not they wanted it. So it seems our society, or at least the one I grew up in, treats religion. Thrown at you at such a speed you have no choice but to live it and accept it and it becomes a part of you and you, it. Pay close attention to "have no choice"...not like you want something else but are forbidden to have it, but rather you actually have no choice, you have no clue of what it is to live without...
Next let me draw on the one quote that has been haunting me throughout this quarter thus far: "Curiosity killed the cat". In ribofunk we see this strain of the human race to constantly fix what has gone wrong. We see it in "Big Eater" "Blankie" "Up the Lazy River" and ultimately in "Distributed Mind", these being the first that came to mind. Humans have reached a state of technology where virtually anything is possible and in that possibility we see the danger of such unlimited power. In "Up the Lazy River" we see a man swallowed by his own river. The river and the silicrobes were acting in ways they weren't programmed to. This is a classic case of technology taking over and becoming smarter than those who discovered and forged it. Then we are finally released into a world where technology has been all we know and have known b/c it has completely taken over: the Urb.
It is then through our curiosity and our drive to progress that we force ourselves into our own destruction. Only when we are swallowed by a river or our friends sent back to their planets or our loved ones turned to ghosts do we beg the question have we gone too far? By then it's too late and we are left wanting to find a new technology that will reverse what we've done.
Only when we are personally subjected to the wrath of our curiosity and invention do we have call into question the beauty and eloquence of Philip Sydney's quote.
So then where is the line? Was it Mendel manipulating the peas? But they're only peas...but they're only rats (I draw attention to the nude mouse)...but they're only sheep, but they're only monkeys, but they're only the old and the dying, but they're only jews, or blondes, or Cubans. Of course now i bring myself back to the idea of competition and my blog about the Post Modern Fable.
We have blown past the line. I don't know where it was but I can say with confidence that we will never find it. It has been covered by the dust of our progress.
Then isn't our progress an off-shoot of our creativity? We spoke of living as an art-form. Living our lives to be art. To me this means living in a full awareness of oneself. Knowing what one desires and enjoys and is capable of. But in knowing what we are capable of we know what we are incapable of and our want of progress and our curiosity coupled with our creativity drives us forward into the unknown. So then it can be argued that our destruction, this utter loss of control we see in Ribofunk is the offspring of out creativity and the art form that science has become.
So there you have it. The thoughts and continuous spewing of my mind in the aftermath of Ribofunk. Which, as I said before, was brilliant.
First of all, on finishing the work, which I thought was brilliant, I could not help but see some form of "God" in the Urb. I was raised Catholic and maybe it's 13 years of Catholic education that has burned that into my psyche and the way in which I read things but I couldn't help but correlate an omnipresent being of divine power and almost humble intentions to the idea of a Catholic God.God is supposed to be everywhere and a part of everything and is this not what we see in the Urb? It took over at such a rate, waiting until it had the power to take the characters completely by surprise until it struck, leaving them unable to defy it or even think about whether or not they wanted it. So it seems our society, or at least the one I grew up in, treats religion. Thrown at you at such a speed you have no choice but to live it and accept it and it becomes a part of you and you, it. Pay close attention to "have no choice"...not like you want something else but are forbidden to have it, but rather you actually have no choice, you have no clue of what it is to live without...
Next let me draw on the one quote that has been haunting me throughout this quarter thus far: "Curiosity killed the cat". In ribofunk we see this strain of the human race to constantly fix what has gone wrong. We see it in "Big Eater" "Blankie" "Up the Lazy River" and ultimately in "Distributed Mind", these being the first that came to mind. Humans have reached a state of technology where virtually anything is possible and in that possibility we see the danger of such unlimited power. In "Up the Lazy River" we see a man swallowed by his own river. The river and the silicrobes were acting in ways they weren't programmed to. This is a classic case of technology taking over and becoming smarter than those who discovered and forged it. Then we are finally released into a world where technology has been all we know and have known b/c it has completely taken over: the Urb.
It is then through our curiosity and our drive to progress that we force ourselves into our own destruction. Only when we are swallowed by a river or our friends sent back to their planets or our loved ones turned to ghosts do we beg the question have we gone too far? By then it's too late and we are left wanting to find a new technology that will reverse what we've done.
Only when we are personally subjected to the wrath of our curiosity and invention do we have call into question the beauty and eloquence of Philip Sydney's quote.
So then where is the line? Was it Mendel manipulating the peas? But they're only peas...but they're only rats (I draw attention to the nude mouse)...but they're only sheep, but they're only monkeys, but they're only the old and the dying, but they're only jews, or blondes, or Cubans. Of course now i bring myself back to the idea of competition and my blog about the Post Modern Fable.
We have blown past the line. I don't know where it was but I can say with confidence that we will never find it. It has been covered by the dust of our progress.
Then isn't our progress an off-shoot of our creativity? We spoke of living as an art-form. Living our lives to be art. To me this means living in a full awareness of oneself. Knowing what one desires and enjoys and is capable of. But in knowing what we are capable of we know what we are incapable of and our want of progress and our curiosity coupled with our creativity drives us forward into the unknown. So then it can be argued that our destruction, this utter loss of control we see in Ribofunk is the offspring of out creativity and the art form that science has become.
So there you have it. The thoughts and continuous spewing of my mind in the aftermath of Ribofunk. Which, as I said before, was brilliant.
Tuesday, February 10, 2009
My very own domesticated domestication
Last year when I was living in the dorms I had to idea who my roommate would be. I was nervous, of course. I'm not very clean and I'm lazy and I could see how someone might be irritated with living with me. (isn't it interesting how i was worried how I would effect the other). Long story short I got a great roommate who never judged me and even encouraged my domestically challenged ways.
Now I live with my brother. He's a year younger than me and we've always been close. It's natural that we would make good roommates because we're so used to being around the other in a domestic setting. we've been trained to domesticate ourselves to the other and to like people because it's all we've known. Would I have different antics had I grown up around a different family with more sisters than brothers or maybe on a farm rather than in the city? Yes. I would.
On the subject of labor and work put into these domestic relationships, my brother and I only get along because we have mastered the art of maintenance in our relationship. We know what the other will think is funny and so we know what jokes to crack. We know what the other likes to eat so we know what to buy and what to leave for the other. We know what annoys the other so we know how to act and when to keep our distance.
The labor that goes into our relationship is all we've known. By breaking that domesticity we break our habit and make the other or ourselves uncomfortable...
Now I live with my brother. He's a year younger than me and we've always been close. It's natural that we would make good roommates because we're so used to being around the other in a domestic setting. we've been trained to domesticate ourselves to the other and to like people because it's all we've known. Would I have different antics had I grown up around a different family with more sisters than brothers or maybe on a farm rather than in the city? Yes. I would.
On the subject of labor and work put into these domestic relationships, my brother and I only get along because we have mastered the art of maintenance in our relationship. We know what the other will think is funny and so we know what jokes to crack. We know what the other likes to eat so we know what to buy and what to leave for the other. We know what annoys the other so we know how to act and when to keep our distance.
The labor that goes into our relationship is all we've known. By breaking that domesticity we break our habit and make the other or ourselves uncomfortable...
Thursday, February 5, 2009
On the value of being human
Today we talked about what it meant to be human. In Life Extreme Ronnel talks about how dogs can identify each other and how she wanted to be a part of that. Maybe it's the way we feel connected with other humans. There was talk of having a mother. More talk of bananas and monkeys and sign language but ultimately we didn't reach any hard facts about what it was to be human. And I'm pressed to think there are few hard facts to be reached on the subject.
What I find much more interesting is what human beings are tending to do with said humanity. We seem to cherish it, if we didn't why would we go to such great lengths to identify it's boundaries. But if we do cherish it so, why do we also have this burning desire to change, alter, and in effect kill it?
With all this talk of futuristic possibilities and inevitable progressions like nanobots injecting entire new languages into our brains and reconfiguring the atom and genetically altering the human being, it seems we have very little value for the original human being. I have to ask, who cares what makes us human? We obviously don't; we're doing everything in our power to get away from it. We call it progress and in a sense it is, but if technology does take the reins and biology takes a back seat, we are faced with the possibility of losing the human race forever.
Yet is it not human to want to be better? So then are we not being better and more true humans by altering ourselves to be better?
My point, though sloppily presented, is that we do not know what makes us human. I do not know, and to be honest, it does not matter to me. I feel good or tired or hungry, that's all i know. What should be examined is how humans treat what is perceived to be their defining characteristics. Why do we claim to cherish humanity if we only seek to alter it?
What I find much more interesting is what human beings are tending to do with said humanity. We seem to cherish it, if we didn't why would we go to such great lengths to identify it's boundaries. But if we do cherish it so, why do we also have this burning desire to change, alter, and in effect kill it?
With all this talk of futuristic possibilities and inevitable progressions like nanobots injecting entire new languages into our brains and reconfiguring the atom and genetically altering the human being, it seems we have very little value for the original human being. I have to ask, who cares what makes us human? We obviously don't; we're doing everything in our power to get away from it. We call it progress and in a sense it is, but if technology does take the reins and biology takes a back seat, we are faced with the possibility of losing the human race forever.
Yet is it not human to want to be better? So then are we not being better and more true humans by altering ourselves to be better?
My point, though sloppily presented, is that we do not know what makes us human. I do not know, and to be honest, it does not matter to me. I feel good or tired or hungry, that's all i know. What should be examined is how humans treat what is perceived to be their defining characteristics. Why do we claim to cherish humanity if we only seek to alter it?
How do we live with others?
I know this is past due but I think it's interesting to think about. I feel that we compete with others. We do not wish to live harmoniously. Though we like to think we do, innately I think human beings want to be better than each other. We live to support ourselves and the people we love. We would steal from another if it meant we could feed our family. We would kill if it meant we would stay alive. I think it is folly to mask the human beings natural desire to compete. Yes, I think it's natural. We want to be the healthiest and the smartest and the wealthiest and the nicest and the most powerful. I don't think it's a bad thing so much as a form of natural selection, survival of the fittest. Plants compete for light, they outgrown each other. Animals compete for food and for companions. We are energy and that energy in itself competes as we read in "The Post-Modern Fable". Humans capacity for competition stems from that feeling of necessity to outgrow and outlive the competing life forms.
Tuesday, January 27, 2009
N+7
"Panama nightlife piece de resistance explode oeuvre of naked redcaps - Sweedish flipped from his facitlity - millet in his crowd - young factoids melts dead nitrous stress - naked branch splintered on empty flood - bleeding drier and the drift is lying there - last rout - the bogey without a shale, without remembrance - brevity of the trade windjammers on his factoid healed and half-healed, in the awareness of evolutionist" -
The Ticket that Exploded (67)
The Ticket that Exploded (67)
Logos: reason vs. chaos
Perhaps my professor was right. Logos does not have to mean reason in the form of order. The chaos Burroughs creates within the "logos group" is meant to give the reader a certain kind of comfort in reason. Not from the seemingly endless amounts of disturbing albeit creative sex, but from our harsh reaction to it. Rhetorically, logos is used along side pathos and ethos as styles and methods of writing. Each are used to captivate and persuade the reader.
Logos uses reasoning to persuade the reader. Burroughs presents the actions of the logos group to be quite reasonable. "Clearing" the mind and conscious of every human being, I have to admit, is an effective and reasonable way to harvest man kind and use it for whatever purpose you chose. With the clear slate, so to speak, one can really do anything with it.
So I find myself crediting the logos group for their reasoning and quite simple way of taking over the human race. However, I must give even more credit to Burroughs. By presenting the Logos group to be this reasonable and efficient group, Burroughs also uses logos himself in knowing that the readers reaction to the atrocity of the group will lead them away from such actions. It is in the the spirit of logos that Burroughs calmly presents this "logos group" and reasonably points out that the logos of this group cannot be the logos of the human being.
Logos uses reasoning to persuade the reader. Burroughs presents the actions of the logos group to be quite reasonable. "Clearing" the mind and conscious of every human being, I have to admit, is an effective and reasonable way to harvest man kind and use it for whatever purpose you chose. With the clear slate, so to speak, one can really do anything with it.
So I find myself crediting the logos group for their reasoning and quite simple way of taking over the human race. However, I must give even more credit to Burroughs. By presenting the Logos group to be this reasonable and efficient group, Burroughs also uses logos himself in knowing that the readers reaction to the atrocity of the group will lead them away from such actions. It is in the the spirit of logos that Burroughs calmly presents this "logos group" and reasonably points out that the logos of this group cannot be the logos of the human being.
Thursday, January 22, 2009
The Morality of The Ticket That Exploded
The Ticket That Exploded by William S. Burroughs is a book, at face value, of random and disturbing homoerotic sex. He does not shy away from hitting the reader right in the gut with one example of this twisted and unheard of eroticism after another. Upon reading Burroughs, one must ask the simple question of why? What's the point of all the sex with slim to none detectable plot? One is constantly bombarded with almost sickening sex scenes that prove to have little value when which ever character has ejaculated. So again, Why?
On page 21 of the work one is introduced to the Logos group. This is a group that tries to infiltrate the human race by manipulating their behavior. The subjects experience traumatic scenes and feelings until they are immune to the feelings. They reach a point where the once disgusting or sad or infuriating feeling no longer exists and they became what the book calls "clear". The "clears" can then be used as almost droids for the Logos group.
There are two points about the Logos group that I find interesting. The first, and smaller of the two, is the name of the group. In Greek philosophy "logos" was a term used to represent the order of the universe and also the reason of a human being. It was a term used by philosophers in slightly different ways (Heraclitus, Aristotle) but all had a sense of order and reason and purpose to them. The opposite of Logos would be chaos. Perhaps the Logos group was named such to represent the order they created by wiping all human emotion clear and leaving the human race blank. I don't know why Burroughs used this allusion but I'm certain it was deliberate.
The second point I want to make is the similarities between what the group was trying to do and what the book does for the reader. When reading Burrough's work, one cannot help but be disgusted. The amount of outrageous and putrid sex that is in the novel is almost overwhelming. It seems there is no plot, just emotionless sex. This makes the reader want to stop reading all together. The Logos group is a representation of the overexposure our society is undergoing to things, events, places, and feelings. This overexposure makes us immune to it. We are no longer bothered by seeing people murdered or raped or abused. Perhaps Burroughs made the novel so utterly over-the-top and in-your-face to call attention to the fact that humans are losing their value, they are losing their ability to feel. By our reaction we prove that we are still disgusted by raw lust and sickening fornication. Ultimately, it could be Burroughs way of warning us of what could happen but also reassuring us that we are still human and we still have hope in preserving our emotion and conscience.
On page 21 of the work one is introduced to the Logos group. This is a group that tries to infiltrate the human race by manipulating their behavior. The subjects experience traumatic scenes and feelings until they are immune to the feelings. They reach a point where the once disgusting or sad or infuriating feeling no longer exists and they became what the book calls "clear". The "clears" can then be used as almost droids for the Logos group.
There are two points about the Logos group that I find interesting. The first, and smaller of the two, is the name of the group. In Greek philosophy "logos" was a term used to represent the order of the universe and also the reason of a human being. It was a term used by philosophers in slightly different ways (Heraclitus, Aristotle) but all had a sense of order and reason and purpose to them. The opposite of Logos would be chaos. Perhaps the Logos group was named such to represent the order they created by wiping all human emotion clear and leaving the human race blank. I don't know why Burroughs used this allusion but I'm certain it was deliberate.
The second point I want to make is the similarities between what the group was trying to do and what the book does for the reader. When reading Burrough's work, one cannot help but be disgusted. The amount of outrageous and putrid sex that is in the novel is almost overwhelming. It seems there is no plot, just emotionless sex. This makes the reader want to stop reading all together. The Logos group is a representation of the overexposure our society is undergoing to things, events, places, and feelings. This overexposure makes us immune to it. We are no longer bothered by seeing people murdered or raped or abused. Perhaps Burroughs made the novel so utterly over-the-top and in-your-face to call attention to the fact that humans are losing their value, they are losing their ability to feel. By our reaction we prove that we are still disgusted by raw lust and sickening fornication. Ultimately, it could be Burroughs way of warning us of what could happen but also reassuring us that we are still human and we still have hope in preserving our emotion and conscience.
Thursday, January 15, 2009
No one's favorite song
HALF BREED by cher. O MY GOD. Most rediculous. I just can't handle it. The thing about the worst song ever is that it has to be the song that no one can listen to all the way through. I've never heard the whole thing. No one can claim this as a favorite. I've attached the video as proof. Note the crackling fire at the beginning. REALLY?
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Z6E98ZRaU1s
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Z6E98ZRaU1s
Tuesday, January 13, 2009
Pataphrase
I posted my pataphrase on plurk but it was in two increments and I'm no sure if it got picked up...so here it is:
Peter and Kyler revelled in the the elastane of amity. The girl with big thighs walked hard, wearing little holes in the inner seam so the two never saw eye to eye again.
Peter and Kyler revelled in the the elastane of amity. The girl with big thighs walked hard, wearing little holes in the inner seam so the two never saw eye to eye again.
Would I want to know Morel?
I'm not sure. Mainly because I'm not sure how willing I would be to be a part of the experiment. I mean for all I know I was already made a part of the experiment. Maybe Casares is from another dimension who knows all about our unfortunate fall into the hands of this great tyrant and has somehow slipped this piece of literature into our libraries to tell is about what's happened. Maybe I'll start yelling "I Love You, *insert name here*" to people just to make sure Morel doesn't yet have a hold on my soul.
But really, would it matter it I was living that life? If I was some reproduction of myself a few years or a few centuries or a few days ago and have just been living a week over and over again would I be that upset? Again, not sure. If so, I'll be honest, I'd have to hand it to Morel. I've had a pretty good repetitious week. I feel my emotions (or what i think are my emotions) rather strongly, well strongly enough that I would be afraid to know if they were watered down from my previous self.
Is it possible that the main character invented Morel to maybe make peace with the mysterious Elisa and the fact that he was not able to make a life with her? Maybe he is mad and the invention of Morel was really an offshoot of the invention of Morel. Had he created this world it would counter what he might have hinted to about no wanting to live. The back and forth the main character has about life and death is very interesting. Looking back at certain passages of the book I can't help but wonder if there was some sort of hint at his life and or death in regards to the intruders.
"I was not dead until the intruders arrived; when one is alone it is impossible to be dead. Now I must eliminate the witnesses before I can come back to life. That will not be difficult: I do not exist, and therefore they will not suspect their own destruction" (54)
Maybe our main character is really dead and a ghost inhabitting the island and the presense of the intruders shows him that he is, in fact, dead. By inventing Morel and his machine and the others, the main character finds a way to "eliminate" them. They are no longer real and so they cannot witness his being dead. The invention of Morel is the key to staying alive.
But really, would it matter it I was living that life? If I was some reproduction of myself a few years or a few centuries or a few days ago and have just been living a week over and over again would I be that upset? Again, not sure. If so, I'll be honest, I'd have to hand it to Morel. I've had a pretty good repetitious week. I feel my emotions (or what i think are my emotions) rather strongly, well strongly enough that I would be afraid to know if they were watered down from my previous self.
Is it possible that the main character invented Morel to maybe make peace with the mysterious Elisa and the fact that he was not able to make a life with her? Maybe he is mad and the invention of Morel was really an offshoot of the invention of Morel. Had he created this world it would counter what he might have hinted to about no wanting to live. The back and forth the main character has about life and death is very interesting. Looking back at certain passages of the book I can't help but wonder if there was some sort of hint at his life and or death in regards to the intruders.
"I was not dead until the intruders arrived; when one is alone it is impossible to be dead. Now I must eliminate the witnesses before I can come back to life. That will not be difficult: I do not exist, and therefore they will not suspect their own destruction" (54)
Maybe our main character is really dead and a ghost inhabitting the island and the presense of the intruders shows him that he is, in fact, dead. By inventing Morel and his machine and the others, the main character finds a way to "eliminate" them. They are no longer real and so they cannot witness his being dead. The invention of Morel is the key to staying alive.
First reactions to The Invention of Morel
I would like to call to attention slash maybe just ask about the memory cpabilities of Morel. I understand the machine, the various possible motives behind it's invention and also the way in which he is now forced to live (or not live). However the one thing I cannot understand is how he revealed the machine to his peers. When he sat them all down, were they in the process of dying? Had the just died and the moment was still relevant enough for Morel to convey to them what was/had happened? Or had then not yet died and Morel was telling them what was going to happen in the very near future. This argument makes sense because it would give him a a chance to explain before hand any discomfort they may feel like we saw with the main character.
It does not make sense that he would tell them after the fact because how would he remember? On page 85 it is discussed how the subjects have no memory of what happened before. So if Morel is explaining his invention after they have been transmitted to their eternal ghost-like state, he should have no memory or what happened before. Also, Stoever and the others should have no memory of Charlie or any misfortunes from their old job.
Also, had Morel transmitted the ship and its crew as well? In which case was the phantom ship floating around the ocean without being seen by anyone else? If this is correct, I SINCERELY hope there are ships and planes and giant Cyclopes roaming the earth that I cannot see.
It does not make sense that he would tell them after the fact because how would he remember? On page 85 it is discussed how the subjects have no memory of what happened before. So if Morel is explaining his invention after they have been transmitted to their eternal ghost-like state, he should have no memory or what happened before. Also, Stoever and the others should have no memory of Charlie or any misfortunes from their old job.
Also, had Morel transmitted the ship and its crew as well? In which case was the phantom ship floating around the ocean without being seen by anyone else? If this is correct, I SINCERELY hope there are ships and planes and giant Cyclopes roaming the earth that I cannot see.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
