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.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
