A Great Opportunity
This thought experiment is dead. We are gathered here to witness and perhaps relish the services contributed to respecting its death. It died violently at the hands of a writer, no sooner completing a heading then whisking swift death to what the entire work could be. Somewhat worse, he managed to get away with it as there were no witnesses to the murder. What are eulogies even for anyway? Is this supposed to conclude or put a capping point at the end of a paper’s life? What about the bad things the thought experiment represented, are we just supposed to forget about those? Is death a catalyst for forgiveness? If it is then that is too bad, as then we are not remembering or learning from the inequities in the past life of it. The term “respect for the dead” has grown to the point of mystical denial of the aspects of the real person/text who died. “Respecting their memory” is even worse as it turns the person into an image, a “Buddy Christ” as you will, who ends up not really representing anything.
Personally, the thought experiment made me struggle; it did not use all of my ideas and it occasionally plagiarized what I meant in a way I did not mean to say it in. I guess you could say that it gave me the gift of free expression but was also enough of a jerk to give me a due date. The due date: a set time when my papers really stop mattering about anything, after all they are turned in, I can blog them and get feedback but no matter what it is really dead. It died when there was no point for anyone to reread it. The same way a lot of the books I own have died to me, or the way any quality information I have seen has disappeared. Teachers keep saying that you could write an entire paper about one thing in one of the texts we read in class, but that is simply unrealistic, the Due Date demands swiftness and sometimes just writing it out as fast as you can to get it turned in on time (I guess I am a little passed that by now). But now it is dead so there is no conclusion, no “wrapping up” of thoughts to be contained within something, maybe now we can learn from it.
Officer Barbary’s testimonial: June 6th, 2010. The TE was found on a laptop, smothered to death by conclusive statements, a mental blood trail being found near the area. Violence is common in that area, but then again violence is pretty common everywhere you go. Makes me wonder what invented first, crime or police once crime became a part of life. The more it is “acceptable” to see crime on the news and the more “human nature” becomes something of greed and competition the more I see the circumstances around me get worse. In times like these, what you cannot get over or accept is very important, which makes me wonder why some people cannot accept death. There is this long drawn out process in which we try to be “moral” about it, especially if violence is involved. Violence: there is something worth talking about, not just that people hurt other people but the “why”. In movies there is always an explanation of why the villain is evil, mostly a troubled past with either him being abused or someone dying. How are we supposed to feel about that? Surely we cannot accept this mindset but at the same time, how can it be stopped from forming? How much does this form everyday in us, like a parasite filling us with bias and judgment obtained from childhood?
Of the items found on the crime scene, there was one that stood out to me, a book called Filth by Irvine Welsh. In it there is Something truly despicable, a relatable character. At first I was downright hateful of what the main character, also a police officer, representing everything evil the human mind can create. However, there was some basis of his thoughts, the way an ordinary person could make evil judgments and put reason behind them to justify it. The “routine” evil of Bruce Robertson was interesting as well, there was a pattern he followed (like most people with a job) that also included him hating everything. I would like to think that very few people hate everything all the time, but very little of the time do I think about the source of hate within myself on “bad days”. Even if pessimism is caused by the circumstances of a day, that pessimism stems from a part of me that recognizes the bad things in the world, even if it overdramatizes them. The tapeworm within Bruce is a whole different story, throughout the book it grows and grows and obtains more of a voice. Also, it has a much different way of speaking than Bruce, more elaborate and always bringing up his past and a twisted view on what it means. This makes me think of the way I view my past, what I justify and what I do not think about but rather gets forced upon me by my mind. Denial is almost like mental violence, it is fighting yourself for control of what to think about which is what makes the battle with the tapeworm so fierce; Bruce has a lot to fight over. Of course, so do I, embarrassing past moments, instances of violence on my part, anything compromising to the image I project. The idea that these two types of thoughts exist together is scary, maybe scary is not the right word, disillusioning is more like it. But when normal violence stops being disillusioning I guess it becomes necessary to make a book like that, and maybe even necessary to kill a thought experiment so it does not become more denial.
Tonight in the local news: a thought experiment found dead with no answers to the culprit. Also, stories that scare people receive more coverage and thus fear gets ratings. It is not just our news too, it is OUR news, you have become a part of it was you watch it. What does not apply to you somehow does when put in the context of information you NEED to know, that is how powerful this “we” is. In “Fellowship” by Franz Kafka, there is a group described who is a “we” but have one member who they do not like being there, but is part of the “we” nonetheless. What about a different case though? What if you are part of a “we” and you do not want to be there in the first place, the American “we” perhaps, or the “we” of everyone who wrote a paper they did not like. In the news we have “follow-up” stories bringing an update on the previous story, but the interesting thing is that after that it is likely not to get mentioned again. This strikes me as being part of the “we” in a culture of non-continuity when it comes to something serious. TV shows are built on continuity, whenever I reference a clever video on the internet that is continuity, but when it comes to the news unless there is a major event that can obtain the interest of the crowd (natural disasters have become common sources recently) it becomes “old news”. Of course there are other better ways to acquire news, but this serves as an example of the idea that once something matters once it can only matter less when brought up again, or that ideas decay rather than grow.
We have a special report in, the killer of the thought experiment has turned himself in! It turns out he has written two other thought experiments before this without death being involved, I guess he just could not resist. The information you are getting from us is very factual. What we forgot to mention is that in real life things do not work in terms of information given, they build up to a point and then break into something. I wonder what the other two thought experiments have built up to, maybe nothing, maybe they are just three separate pieces of a writer trying to be clever with what he has been given. After reading them though, it makes me think of the octopus from the Science is Fiction videos, and how it is so easy to turn them into monsters. Makes me think how difficult it is to turn papers into something which truly communicates something of that magnitude. The pressure which comes with making something that sounds right to the writer but resonates inside everyone’s head, of course I think most can compare with this difficulty so at least that is something. I remember someone saying something on Plurk that expanded this more (I scrolled through a lot of timelines and still could not find the exact quote), it was about how real writing should be done when it is pouring out of the individual writing it not just for the sake of writing to be elitist and “acceptable”. I find myself guilty of this lots of times, all I can really hope is that my writing speaks for itself, that somewhere in there is a tone that is different than others.
Transcript of interview with Writer/Killer:
Newsman: Hello, welcome to the interview with the killer of the thought experiment. We do not have a lot of time, so moving on to the first and most obvious question, why did you do it?
Writer: I did it because I thought it would prove I learned something about what it means for an event to be over, and seeing the reactions after the death I think I was right.
NM: What do you mean an event being over?
Writer: Exactly, there are so many traces of information after the event, parasites sticking with me, biting me to keep asking and answering my own questions.
NM: I do not understand, what did you hope to achieve with the death of the paper?
Writer: The luxury of having it make a point BEFORE someone has read it in the first place, which is that death causes people to rethink something in a way that they could have done when it was alive.
NM: Obviously you are insane, that paper could have had a family! How will you be judged for this, which judge would forgive you?
Writer: Now that is an interesting thought, but judgment is very different than deciding forgiveness. Judgment is saying if something is right or wrong, forgiveness is knowing that someone did something wrong but deciding to let it go. Forgiveness is a lot rarer I would say, or should be anyway.
NM: Did the thought experiment not deserve to be forgiven? Isn’t there the expression “It is easier to ask forgiveness than to ask permission”?
Writer: Oh, I was just talking in general. And who does deserve to be forgiven? You know, it is easier to forgive people and feel like the good person, to comfort someone and receive their thanks. But when does that grow to the point of denying consequences and thus denying learning?
NM: You have obviously been educated, but then why did you turn yourself in?
Writer: I turned myself in because I have to live with the consequences of the due date, no matter how much it pains me to express it. I almost avoided talking about my old work too, despite my large amount of rambling on how important it is.
NM: We all have to work for somebody.
Writer: True, but who do teachers work for? The students obviously (it certainly does not sound like the money) but more specifically, for the texts so the students can get them? For whatever concept they are teaching so that they themselves can learn as well as the year goes on so they can teach it better (I am not just thinking about this to suck up btw)? I use the word teacher because I teach myself and my friends, and they teach me in a system that requires learning mainly via the internet and school.
NM: This is all very interesting but beside the point, the thought experiment is dead, your thoughts are counted, the due date past and all of this is finished, what possible explanation do you have for your actions if your paper is just being written and in ending the same way?
Writer: I guess it is like they say in the movie, “I’m just a natural born killer…”
Wednesday, June 9, 2010
Friday, June 4, 2010
A quickly-written blog
I've been putting this off for a while, mostly cause I've been trying to decide how much to share with the blogverse here. I still don't have a good idea, but it's friday, so I guess this is due and it's time to turn it in.
You're supposed to talk about yourself in blogs, and I havn't really done that yet, so here's some background. In psych 101 I took a test to determine where I stand among 5 universal traits of people. Most of my scores were average, but I got a 13/15 in agreeableness, which means a few things. It says "high scorers tend to be honest and good natured, sympathetic and forgiving" but that extremely high scores mean you're "easily taken advantage of and overly self-critical". I find that in most people, depression is caused by people avoiding looking at what they are and what they do have and instead focusing on what qualities, abilities, or achievements they lack. It's no exception with me, I know I'm nice and I know that my friends like that, but at the same time nice isn't that exciting or dynamic. But this isn't just me talking about my problems, self-acceptance is something that everyone can relate to.
"The better you can explain who you serve, the more purpose you will have in life."
This is a quote that one of ace's blogs centered around, and it made me think for a while. It's strange how often we/I serve other people, in the sense of giving my attention or my thoughts. Makes me wonder how often I don't think about myself, how maybe there should be some time put in to be opinionated in order to stay sane.
Now the year is ending, I remember when Seamus visited up here, we went to a friends party and had a talk. He's a year younger than me but I've known him since elementary school, so it's been weird not seeing him except in weekend visits for the year. I usually find it uncomfortable when I blog/write about personal stuff and share it with people, but maybe there's a point to all this. Anyway, we talked about the year, and he told me that I shouldn't be depressed of how I still havn't dated anyone because of how well him and my friends understand me and how they believe in me. That almost sounds cheesy and we were both drunk and a little more, but it puts the "serving" relationship in a different light. Maybe it’s not serving other people if I just realize that I can do anything I want to and that will still be originally me.
As for the purpose part, I'm not exactly sure I believe in purpose, I certainly try to be the person who will understand and add to what people talk to me about, but that's just cause I think it's the right thing to do. But as far as my life goals or overall purpose, I just kind of want to go with the flow, end up somewhere I'll enjoy myself. Maybe keep writing if I end up really enjoying it. But there's no set boundary or state of being that I am truly wishing for right now (not that I don't want something out of life but maybe that will come to me).
I don't have a final point or conclusion, just that this is the scattered thoughts I've been having. I can at least take comfort in that despite all my talk about dependancy on other people, I don't listen/talk to people just to be accepted, they have to be genuinly interesting people in order for me to give an effort. That's why I've enjoyed parasites so much, it's hard not to try when there's lots of cool people, especially with plurk.
At your service
-Sam
You're supposed to talk about yourself in blogs, and I havn't really done that yet, so here's some background. In psych 101 I took a test to determine where I stand among 5 universal traits of people. Most of my scores were average, but I got a 13/15 in agreeableness, which means a few things. It says "high scorers tend to be honest and good natured, sympathetic and forgiving" but that extremely high scores mean you're "easily taken advantage of and overly self-critical". I find that in most people, depression is caused by people avoiding looking at what they are and what they do have and instead focusing on what qualities, abilities, or achievements they lack. It's no exception with me, I know I'm nice and I know that my friends like that, but at the same time nice isn't that exciting or dynamic. But this isn't just me talking about my problems, self-acceptance is something that everyone can relate to.
"The better you can explain who you serve, the more purpose you will have in life."
This is a quote that one of ace's blogs centered around, and it made me think for a while. It's strange how often we/I serve other people, in the sense of giving my attention or my thoughts. Makes me wonder how often I don't think about myself, how maybe there should be some time put in to be opinionated in order to stay sane.
Now the year is ending, I remember when Seamus visited up here, we went to a friends party and had a talk. He's a year younger than me but I've known him since elementary school, so it's been weird not seeing him except in weekend visits for the year. I usually find it uncomfortable when I blog/write about personal stuff and share it with people, but maybe there's a point to all this. Anyway, we talked about the year, and he told me that I shouldn't be depressed of how I still havn't dated anyone because of how well him and my friends understand me and how they believe in me. That almost sounds cheesy and we were both drunk and a little more, but it puts the "serving" relationship in a different light. Maybe it’s not serving other people if I just realize that I can do anything I want to and that will still be originally me.
As for the purpose part, I'm not exactly sure I believe in purpose, I certainly try to be the person who will understand and add to what people talk to me about, but that's just cause I think it's the right thing to do. But as far as my life goals or overall purpose, I just kind of want to go with the flow, end up somewhere I'll enjoy myself. Maybe keep writing if I end up really enjoying it. But there's no set boundary or state of being that I am truly wishing for right now (not that I don't want something out of life but maybe that will come to me).
I don't have a final point or conclusion, just that this is the scattered thoughts I've been having. I can at least take comfort in that despite all my talk about dependancy on other people, I don't listen/talk to people just to be accepted, they have to be genuinly interesting people in order for me to give an effort. That's why I've enjoyed parasites so much, it's hard not to try when there's lots of cool people, especially with plurk.
At your service
-Sam
Sunday, May 23, 2010
Sam Griswold
Tony Prichard
Writing in Context: Parasites
May 21, 2010
“Adjectives on a typewriter, he moves his words like a prizefighter. The frenzied pace of the mind inside the self” – the song “Shadow Stabbing” by Cake
The author of the text went away from his Hulu window to attempt to write something, setting down his fingers on the keys one by one to push out the first sentence before his mind became apathetic to the idea of starting the process. He was not thinking of creating a text when he looked at the blank page, he simply thought of filling the space and letting whoever was not there give their judgment. Keep in mind, when it comes to fiction or even clever investigation of non-fiction, writing is not simply to state an obvious story perhaps containing a moral or lesson to be learned. Rather, it is the details, the authors writing “voice” and what that voice says and does not say. In the Science is Fiction movies, even the facts of nature were given in a new light that showed playfulness, wonder, and even grotesqueness, all because of the words, style, and music it was shown with, the choices of the person who made it. But back to the author, how does he begin this descent into a voice, is it precise and focused process? Or is it something that comes naturally to everyone as they write? Maybe the best way to find out is to keep watching him write.
As the text spilled out, he wondered things like how much time should he spend narrating or how much time to spend on the characters. He tapped one of his feet as memories came flooding to the tip of his mind, giving him tools to express himself that others would understand. However, not once in this process did he ask himself why he was writing, which is interesting when you think of how in childhood everyone always why to everything. It is as if writing needs no explanation, and that writers are those people who have something to express and simply must express it. To be redundant, why ask why? Humans are social creatures, writing is another form of communication, why does there have to be a complex reason to want to write? Well, because most of the time stories show something in life that we would not notice normally. Again mentioning Science is Fiction, there was a conversation in class where one of the first things mentioned was how everything can be thought of as a story, everything can serve a function whatever we use that function for. This made me think of the name “Science is Fiction” itself, what allows science to be fiction, what is the transforming component? I think that this question can be answered by the word “purpose’ (not to be confused with porpoise, as in the porpoise of life). Stories allow science to be fiction because they give the ordinary a different purpose, they separate it from being something we have little reason to care about and turns it into something that amazes or applies to us. Perhaps there is a need in us to think of the world as “different” (add hand gesture here), like how in the movie The Fantastic Mr. Fox the main character needs to be the greatest thing ever, only we need to notice what kind of story we are in.
The idea of how much in control he was of this little world he had created suddenly occurred to the author. He could look at the rules of grammar and (after choosing how carefully or loosely to follow them) create something familiar, as he had created the room around him out of the pursuits and interests of his life. But in writing, he could explain these things, why the unmade D&D character sheet was slouching out under a pile of books on Taoism, or what the handwritten letter from his father sitting on his desk said. I would like to point out now (although rather late) that this kind of mentality can be applied to more forms of communication than just writing, I say writing simply because it is common and because it commands respect with its permanency. But in all communication I have to wonder if the author is right or not, how much control do I have over the worlds I create? In my psychology class we talked about conditioning and what it means to be shaped by your environment and genetics, both of which no one has any control over. So can I say that ME, the real individual that makes me different than others is writing this or is it just my conditioning? Maybe conditioning creates this individual, but the idea still remains that they are both there, inside me, delivering my view in a way that is conditioned to be understood if somewhat biased, but also the voice that comes with it. Perhaps communication is like the “Other” that was referred to in The Vampire Lectures by Lawrence Rickels, and as I communicate I invite the “real” me into my conditioning allowing me to get this effect. It certainly seems like I would desire for this to happen, but maybe I am being deceived and am inviting in even more conditioning, how deep does it go? I cannot tell the difference whether my thoughts are my own creative output or the combination of many ideas I’ve heard put together by my brain and my life so far. Maybe the only way to notice this is to pay attention to what I think and what I do when I’m thinking.
The author sat back from his hunched over position, his shirt sticking to his back because of the warm conditions of the room. He was not sure how long he had been working, and as he looked back at his work realized that he had actually forgotten some of what he had written. His story had taken him deeper then he thought it would, in his haste to put it down before he lost some of the energy that had made him start in the first place. He ironically picked this moment to ask whether he was using enough voice (because he could not do that in the paragraph about the self). Going back to look at a story is interesting, you think about what made you want to say that, what were the conditions around you (of course in this case it is easier for me to see this), and what traits the story has, but this is where I start asking questions. Drawing from a conversation with acelessthan3 on plurk, I discovered a story could be described as a mental existence of things based off the physical existence of a person, but when it is put down on paper, film, etc. it could be described as a physical version of a mental existence. What does this duality give stories? I think that it gives it a very intangible trait, like how a pun has a dual meaning that gives a point and a joke about the way language works, only in this duality I do not get the punchline. To again quote ace again, “The story is different from the author. The story is different from the words you read”. After writing and deleting a couple times, I realize I have no idea what this trait could possibly be, it could be how writing is encompassing of human qualities, animal, intellectual, etc. but it could also be something as simple as how stories do not ignore any part of life or death (unlike how I tend to “skip over” things or be “lost in thought”). . However, I do not think either could give it justice, stories simply are, going back to why people create these, I think I will add to make something that no one can completely define Maybe that is what makes stories puns in the first place, they give you a lesson/character/process to enjoy but do not tell you about something beneath that. Perhaps an “other” that Rickels was talking about, we desire a greater meaning from the story so we invite it in without truly knowing everything it is, and once we see it we want more of it like a true vampire relationship.
Parasites, vampires, and wild animals. I am the author and the author is me. I invited him in to see what I look like when I make a story and if that reveals something about thinking about life in the context of another story. I like the idea that we are all like the characters that we connect to, it puts books and movies on the same level as living (not to downplay either of them, learning from the minds of others can be more rewarding, that is what school/this class is for). Of course this entire system could be the conditioning I referred to, we set up communication as one of the most important thing because then it is easy to get rewarded as texts and conversations are everywhere. Still, maybe it is a good system, maybe it is this way because it promote what I have been talking about (if I have been talking about anything at all), some hints at purpose, the individual, and some things that we really do not know about unless we talk about how much we do not know about them. I am a parasite because I learn how to tell stories from other people, I am a vampire because I am invited in to think that making texts will do something, and I am a wild animal because what I say still depends on ME: that is what I mean by I am the author.
Tony Prichard
Writing in Context: Parasites
May 21, 2010
“Adjectives on a typewriter, he moves his words like a prizefighter. The frenzied pace of the mind inside the self” – the song “Shadow Stabbing” by Cake
The author of the text went away from his Hulu window to attempt to write something, setting down his fingers on the keys one by one to push out the first sentence before his mind became apathetic to the idea of starting the process. He was not thinking of creating a text when he looked at the blank page, he simply thought of filling the space and letting whoever was not there give their judgment. Keep in mind, when it comes to fiction or even clever investigation of non-fiction, writing is not simply to state an obvious story perhaps containing a moral or lesson to be learned. Rather, it is the details, the authors writing “voice” and what that voice says and does not say. In the Science is Fiction movies, even the facts of nature were given in a new light that showed playfulness, wonder, and even grotesqueness, all because of the words, style, and music it was shown with, the choices of the person who made it. But back to the author, how does he begin this descent into a voice, is it precise and focused process? Or is it something that comes naturally to everyone as they write? Maybe the best way to find out is to keep watching him write.
As the text spilled out, he wondered things like how much time should he spend narrating or how much time to spend on the characters. He tapped one of his feet as memories came flooding to the tip of his mind, giving him tools to express himself that others would understand. However, not once in this process did he ask himself why he was writing, which is interesting when you think of how in childhood everyone always why to everything. It is as if writing needs no explanation, and that writers are those people who have something to express and simply must express it. To be redundant, why ask why? Humans are social creatures, writing is another form of communication, why does there have to be a complex reason to want to write? Well, because most of the time stories show something in life that we would not notice normally. Again mentioning Science is Fiction, there was a conversation in class where one of the first things mentioned was how everything can be thought of as a story, everything can serve a function whatever we use that function for. This made me think of the name “Science is Fiction” itself, what allows science to be fiction, what is the transforming component? I think that this question can be answered by the word “purpose’ (not to be confused with porpoise, as in the porpoise of life). Stories allow science to be fiction because they give the ordinary a different purpose, they separate it from being something we have little reason to care about and turns it into something that amazes or applies to us. Perhaps there is a need in us to think of the world as “different” (add hand gesture here), like how in the movie The Fantastic Mr. Fox the main character needs to be the greatest thing ever, only we need to notice what kind of story we are in.
The idea of how much in control he was of this little world he had created suddenly occurred to the author. He could look at the rules of grammar and (after choosing how carefully or loosely to follow them) create something familiar, as he had created the room around him out of the pursuits and interests of his life. But in writing, he could explain these things, why the unmade D&D character sheet was slouching out under a pile of books on Taoism, or what the handwritten letter from his father sitting on his desk said. I would like to point out now (although rather late) that this kind of mentality can be applied to more forms of communication than just writing, I say writing simply because it is common and because it commands respect with its permanency. But in all communication I have to wonder if the author is right or not, how much control do I have over the worlds I create? In my psychology class we talked about conditioning and what it means to be shaped by your environment and genetics, both of which no one has any control over. So can I say that ME, the real individual that makes me different than others is writing this or is it just my conditioning? Maybe conditioning creates this individual, but the idea still remains that they are both there, inside me, delivering my view in a way that is conditioned to be understood if somewhat biased, but also the voice that comes with it. Perhaps communication is like the “Other” that was referred to in The Vampire Lectures by Lawrence Rickels, and as I communicate I invite the “real” me into my conditioning allowing me to get this effect. It certainly seems like I would desire for this to happen, but maybe I am being deceived and am inviting in even more conditioning, how deep does it go? I cannot tell the difference whether my thoughts are my own creative output or the combination of many ideas I’ve heard put together by my brain and my life so far. Maybe the only way to notice this is to pay attention to what I think and what I do when I’m thinking.
The author sat back from his hunched over position, his shirt sticking to his back because of the warm conditions of the room. He was not sure how long he had been working, and as he looked back at his work realized that he had actually forgotten some of what he had written. His story had taken him deeper then he thought it would, in his haste to put it down before he lost some of the energy that had made him start in the first place. He ironically picked this moment to ask whether he was using enough voice (because he could not do that in the paragraph about the self). Going back to look at a story is interesting, you think about what made you want to say that, what were the conditions around you (of course in this case it is easier for me to see this), and what traits the story has, but this is where I start asking questions. Drawing from a conversation with acelessthan3 on plurk, I discovered a story could be described as a mental existence of things based off the physical existence of a person, but when it is put down on paper, film, etc. it could be described as a physical version of a mental existence. What does this duality give stories? I think that it gives it a very intangible trait, like how a pun has a dual meaning that gives a point and a joke about the way language works, only in this duality I do not get the punchline. To again quote ace again, “The story is different from the author. The story is different from the words you read”. After writing and deleting a couple times, I realize I have no idea what this trait could possibly be, it could be how writing is encompassing of human qualities, animal, intellectual, etc. but it could also be something as simple as how stories do not ignore any part of life or death (unlike how I tend to “skip over” things or be “lost in thought”). . However, I do not think either could give it justice, stories simply are, going back to why people create these, I think I will add to make something that no one can completely define Maybe that is what makes stories puns in the first place, they give you a lesson/character/process to enjoy but do not tell you about something beneath that. Perhaps an “other” that Rickels was talking about, we desire a greater meaning from the story so we invite it in without truly knowing everything it is, and once we see it we want more of it like a true vampire relationship.
Parasites, vampires, and wild animals. I am the author and the author is me. I invited him in to see what I look like when I make a story and if that reveals something about thinking about life in the context of another story. I like the idea that we are all like the characters that we connect to, it puts books and movies on the same level as living (not to downplay either of them, learning from the minds of others can be more rewarding, that is what school/this class is for). Of course this entire system could be the conditioning I referred to, we set up communication as one of the most important thing because then it is easy to get rewarded as texts and conversations are everywhere. Still, maybe it is a good system, maybe it is this way because it promote what I have been talking about (if I have been talking about anything at all), some hints at purpose, the individual, and some things that we really do not know about unless we talk about how much we do not know about them. I am a parasite because I learn how to tell stories from other people, I am a vampire because I am invited in to think that making texts will do something, and I am a wild animal because what I say still depends on ME: that is what I mean by I am the author.
Monday, May 17, 2010
Nature: An American Cultural View
When I think of “nature” or the words “saving the environment” I always imagine some picturesque setting of giraffes walking across a plain with a sunset behind them set to music. This is caused by seeing this image over and over, in National Geographic, movies set in Africa, the show Planet Earth, etc. The reason I think this occurs is because most Americans are unsure what to feel about nature in real life. The theme of “natural beauty” means a complete ecosystem of animals, meaning that for our cultural purposes animals construct our sense of nature. America is not famous for the animals in it except in the national parks, and a lot of people do not see those, especially since some of the most famous places are cities like New York or Los Angeles where the idealistic nature is completely absent from. The effect this creates is that people think of nature as something that is far away and while pretty, too savage for civilization. The animals in our culture are then thought of as not really a part of nature but not equal to humanity either. The question of how we should feel about nature is answered by investigating the laws that govern it, how we value the life of animals in America and how they are equal to us, and the ways our culture first misleads us into being confused about these.
Do people think of the laws of nature as good or evil? Certainly we accept the idea that those laws exist in the world, but since we do not apply them to ourselves could they be considered a necessity? In nature there is death and the struggle to survive, something that is not accepted as in human culture except in the most extreme cases, so the morality of this system seems very ambiguous compared to human values. Stephen Jay Gould wrote an essay called “Nonmoral Nature” in which he discusses how nature does not follow a strict code of morality. In one section he writes, “Our failure to discern the universal good we once expected does not record our lack of insight or ingenuity but merely demonstrates that nature contains no moral messages framed in human terms.”. In other words, nature is not good or evil but simply an effective system for the survival of each creature, which shows that maybe our rejection comes from a lack of understanding. However, this view does not mention that a species keeping itself alive by competing is a kind of morality in the long term, and the death involved is no different than how we kill creatures for our nourishment. Even if our way is clean and no as bloody as a lion attacking its prey or a parasite attacking a host, the end result is the same, profit for the winner. So even if we look at the animals in nature as having a blunt system of survival of the fittest, we cannot deny that our own survival still requires this morality of humanity being part of the system, even if we are at the top.
Even if animals have a system similar to ours, the differences between us and them are obvious, more specifically in intelligence and ability to communicate. Some animal rights groups fight this problem by revealing how similar animals are to us in hopes of showing the connections man still has to the rest of nature, most of the time not for a large scale changing of culture, but teaching an important lesson nonetheless. In The Omnivores Dilemma by Michael Pollan, he quotes Peter Singer, the author of the book Animal Liberation, which argues for equal rights for animals among humans. Singer argues by writing “If possessing a higher degree of intelligence does not entitle one human to use another for his or her own ends, how can it entitle humans to exploit non-humans for the same purpose?”. This brings up the theme of how humans value their own even if animals prove to be as smart as those who are mentally retarded. With this logic, even if we cannot communicate with animals they still deserve respect beyond admiring them on television, in a zoo, or in a park. Advertising how interesting the rest of the animals that are left are is not the same thing as connecting to them, using them for simply entertainment, even if they are in their natural environments is still exploiting them and not providing the equality Singer asks for. Unfortunately, this view knocks us off the pedestal our culture has put us on, and says that we are just like the rest of nature. The lack of animals causes this to not be communicated in our culture, which makes animals even rarer making a cycle that leads to people worrying about humanities problems more because they are always visible.
Another question that reveals the confusion of what to think about nature is how do we value animals in relation to ourselves? And by value I do not mean respect, I mean how much do people think that other life is worth in comparison to our own? According to television, many of the preserved parts of nature with lots of animals look fine, so why should effort be put in to value them? At the very least they will always be on TV. The value we place on the animals we do come into contact with (even their meat) is important because it reveals the judgments we as a society make on the value of life, and how much effort is taken to justify looking down on other animals as subservient to us and not a part of nature. How we treat the real animals reveals our cultural confusion of how to treat nature, because if we treat “normal” animals badly how can we expect to know what nature is? We can see with the way fast food companies treat their animals sometimes animals are not worth as much as our convenience, but other times like with endangered species they are worth vast amounts of money. Since we elevate ourselves, it would make sense that we would elevate some animals to not being in the rest of nature, but instead chosen servants of our food industry. Michael Pollan wrote a book called The Omnivores Dilemma discussing normal Americans choices about what they eat and the truth behind it, including some sections about the morality of eating different foods. In one section he discusses the killing of chickens in the classic small farm way by writing “…the pile [of chicken guts] offered an inescapable reminder of al that eating chicken involves—the killing, the bleeding, the evisceration.” which means that the graphic reality of eating meat is still bloody despite the way it is packaged. Although Americans do not necessarily dislike animals, our lifestyle still ends up with their mass deaths so how can we gain a respect for them and thus a concept of nature in America? Or to look at it on a larger scale, our lifestyle hurts nature in the same way, as we have a hard time respecting nature as a majority of our efforts and economy in life ends up being a metaphorical slaughterhouse toward the natural world. If we looked at animals on our level we would have to change our entire lifestyle in order to manage for them, and that would end up making ordinary living more difficult, so the question of how much animals are worth is really asking how much our society now is worth. Eating animals and using them for our purposes are part of our culture, which while it can be immoral, is also part of our national identity and past. So in order look at animals on our level, we would have to abandon many of the traditions which make this country itself, showing another reason of why it is difficult what to think about nature.
Where does the cultural confusion about the way to deal with the destruction of nature come from and why is it wrong? Even television and media do not explain how it could be so deeply ingrained in our culture. The answer is that we view ourselves as being completely separate from nature, transcending it with our intelligence and creating something that is better: civilization. Even religions put us first, for example the bible says that man was made in god’s image, alluding that he had the divine right to rule to begin with, and is above the rest of the animals. Some can even argue that the Darwinian view supports our expansion by the concept of “survival of the fittest” which we apparently are. However does survival of the fittest have to mean that other species do not survive at all or survive only for our benefit? Even though American culture has the argument of being successful for mankind, the concept of our success is built on the assumption that the ecosystems we cleared away were not as important as our expansion. John Berger wrote an essay called “Why Look at Animals?” in which he discusses the lack of animals in our culture. He ends the essay by writing “This historic loss [of ecosystems with animals in America], to which zoos are a monument, is now irredeemable for the culture of capitalism.” which addresses how our way of life itself is an affront to connecting with animals. This notably points out how our economy reflects wanting to see animals but yet not really save or preserve nature, revealing how even though it is pointed out that while nature is made to be a precious commodity in our culture like in movies like Avatar, this image comes from a consumer culture which is destructive creating confusion. The entire image looks like this: humans consider ourselves rulers of nature, and while we want to rule fairly this also means we get more than a fair share and we are supported by a culture and economy which supports nature on one side (“being green” is more popular then ever) and exploits on another. All of this causes confusion of what to feel, whether it is blessed for a life of comfort or guilty for taking part in this contradicting society.
Going back to the question of how we should feel about nature, there are a lot of ways to think about it, even ones that I have not discussed. For example, thinking about nature not through the animals in it, but through nature being areas that lack humans in it as most residential areas do not include a lot of plants and animals. However, I have chosen to discuss nature this way because when we view animals, they are seen as fascinating, even deer are viewed with awe when seen living close to people. This awe comes from both an understanding of their rarity and a desire to understand how and why animals act and think compared to us. Viewing animals makes people more connected and interested in nature, so the treatment of animals and the way they behave in America reflects our realistic values of nature compared to how we feel about what is far away from us, and allows us to question what we feel about nature by viewing our part in it.
When I think of “nature” or the words “saving the environment” I always imagine some picturesque setting of giraffes walking across a plain with a sunset behind them set to music. This is caused by seeing this image over and over, in National Geographic, movies set in Africa, the show Planet Earth, etc. The reason I think this occurs is because most Americans are unsure what to feel about nature in real life. The theme of “natural beauty” means a complete ecosystem of animals, meaning that for our cultural purposes animals construct our sense of nature. America is not famous for the animals in it except in the national parks, and a lot of people do not see those, especially since some of the most famous places are cities like New York or Los Angeles where the idealistic nature is completely absent from. The effect this creates is that people think of nature as something that is far away and while pretty, too savage for civilization. The animals in our culture are then thought of as not really a part of nature but not equal to humanity either. The question of how we should feel about nature is answered by investigating the laws that govern it, how we value the life of animals in America and how they are equal to us, and the ways our culture first misleads us into being confused about these.
Do people think of the laws of nature as good or evil? Certainly we accept the idea that those laws exist in the world, but since we do not apply them to ourselves could they be considered a necessity? In nature there is death and the struggle to survive, something that is not accepted as in human culture except in the most extreme cases, so the morality of this system seems very ambiguous compared to human values. Stephen Jay Gould wrote an essay called “Nonmoral Nature” in which he discusses how nature does not follow a strict code of morality. In one section he writes, “Our failure to discern the universal good we once expected does not record our lack of insight or ingenuity but merely demonstrates that nature contains no moral messages framed in human terms.”. In other words, nature is not good or evil but simply an effective system for the survival of each creature, which shows that maybe our rejection comes from a lack of understanding. However, this view does not mention that a species keeping itself alive by competing is a kind of morality in the long term, and the death involved is no different than how we kill creatures for our nourishment. Even if our way is clean and no as bloody as a lion attacking its prey or a parasite attacking a host, the end result is the same, profit for the winner. So even if we look at the animals in nature as having a blunt system of survival of the fittest, we cannot deny that our own survival still requires this morality of humanity being part of the system, even if we are at the top.
Even if animals have a system similar to ours, the differences between us and them are obvious, more specifically in intelligence and ability to communicate. Some animal rights groups fight this problem by revealing how similar animals are to us in hopes of showing the connections man still has to the rest of nature, most of the time not for a large scale changing of culture, but teaching an important lesson nonetheless. In The Omnivores Dilemma by Michael Pollan, he quotes Peter Singer, the author of the book Animal Liberation, which argues for equal rights for animals among humans. Singer argues by writing “If possessing a higher degree of intelligence does not entitle one human to use another for his or her own ends, how can it entitle humans to exploit non-humans for the same purpose?”. This brings up the theme of how humans value their own even if animals prove to be as smart as those who are mentally retarded. With this logic, even if we cannot communicate with animals they still deserve respect beyond admiring them on television, in a zoo, or in a park. Advertising how interesting the rest of the animals that are left are is not the same thing as connecting to them, using them for simply entertainment, even if they are in their natural environments is still exploiting them and not providing the equality Singer asks for. Unfortunately, this view knocks us off the pedestal our culture has put us on, and says that we are just like the rest of nature. The lack of animals causes this to not be communicated in our culture, which makes animals even rarer making a cycle that leads to people worrying about humanities problems more because they are always visible.
Another question that reveals the confusion of what to think about nature is how do we value animals in relation to ourselves? And by value I do not mean respect, I mean how much do people think that other life is worth in comparison to our own? According to television, many of the preserved parts of nature with lots of animals look fine, so why should effort be put in to value them? At the very least they will always be on TV. The value we place on the animals we do come into contact with (even their meat) is important because it reveals the judgments we as a society make on the value of life, and how much effort is taken to justify looking down on other animals as subservient to us and not a part of nature. How we treat the real animals reveals our cultural confusion of how to treat nature, because if we treat “normal” animals badly how can we expect to know what nature is? We can see with the way fast food companies treat their animals sometimes animals are not worth as much as our convenience, but other times like with endangered species they are worth vast amounts of money. Since we elevate ourselves, it would make sense that we would elevate some animals to not being in the rest of nature, but instead chosen servants of our food industry. Michael Pollan wrote a book called The Omnivores Dilemma discussing normal Americans choices about what they eat and the truth behind it, including some sections about the morality of eating different foods. In one section he discusses the killing of chickens in the classic small farm way by writing “…the pile [of chicken guts] offered an inescapable reminder of al that eating chicken involves—the killing, the bleeding, the evisceration.” which means that the graphic reality of eating meat is still bloody despite the way it is packaged. Although Americans do not necessarily dislike animals, our lifestyle still ends up with their mass deaths so how can we gain a respect for them and thus a concept of nature in America? Or to look at it on a larger scale, our lifestyle hurts nature in the same way, as we have a hard time respecting nature as a majority of our efforts and economy in life ends up being a metaphorical slaughterhouse toward the natural world. If we looked at animals on our level we would have to change our entire lifestyle in order to manage for them, and that would end up making ordinary living more difficult, so the question of how much animals are worth is really asking how much our society now is worth. Eating animals and using them for our purposes are part of our culture, which while it can be immoral, is also part of our national identity and past. So in order look at animals on our level, we would have to abandon many of the traditions which make this country itself, showing another reason of why it is difficult what to think about nature.
Where does the cultural confusion about the way to deal with the destruction of nature come from and why is it wrong? Even television and media do not explain how it could be so deeply ingrained in our culture. The answer is that we view ourselves as being completely separate from nature, transcending it with our intelligence and creating something that is better: civilization. Even religions put us first, for example the bible says that man was made in god’s image, alluding that he had the divine right to rule to begin with, and is above the rest of the animals. Some can even argue that the Darwinian view supports our expansion by the concept of “survival of the fittest” which we apparently are. However does survival of the fittest have to mean that other species do not survive at all or survive only for our benefit? Even though American culture has the argument of being successful for mankind, the concept of our success is built on the assumption that the ecosystems we cleared away were not as important as our expansion. John Berger wrote an essay called “Why Look at Animals?” in which he discusses the lack of animals in our culture. He ends the essay by writing “This historic loss [of ecosystems with animals in America], to which zoos are a monument, is now irredeemable for the culture of capitalism.” which addresses how our way of life itself is an affront to connecting with animals. This notably points out how our economy reflects wanting to see animals but yet not really save or preserve nature, revealing how even though it is pointed out that while nature is made to be a precious commodity in our culture like in movies like Avatar, this image comes from a consumer culture which is destructive creating confusion. The entire image looks like this: humans consider ourselves rulers of nature, and while we want to rule fairly this also means we get more than a fair share and we are supported by a culture and economy which supports nature on one side (“being green” is more popular then ever) and exploits on another. All of this causes confusion of what to feel, whether it is blessed for a life of comfort or guilty for taking part in this contradicting society.
Going back to the question of how we should feel about nature, there are a lot of ways to think about it, even ones that I have not discussed. For example, thinking about nature not through the animals in it, but through nature being areas that lack humans in it as most residential areas do not include a lot of plants and animals. However, I have chosen to discuss nature this way because when we view animals, they are seen as fascinating, even deer are viewed with awe when seen living close to people. This awe comes from both an understanding of their rarity and a desire to understand how and why animals act and think compared to us. Viewing animals makes people more connected and interested in nature, so the treatment of animals and the way they behave in America reflects our realistic values of nature compared to how we feel about what is far away from us, and allows us to question what we feel about nature by viewing our part in it.
Friday, April 30, 2010
Sam Griswold
Tony Prichard
English 203
4/30/10
Direct in Colorvision
Welcome to the evening news, this is Tom Tucker, today we see an outbreak of a new kind of parasite: technology, here’s Jim Whistler with the scoop.
Thanks Tom, as the years have gone by there have been astounding developments to this pastime we call “living” namely the addition of technology, screens appearing everywhere displaying information that we use or abuse constantly. After the certainty of human survival and dominance is achieved then technology really has two alternative purposes, luxury and communication between people. However, this new communication can cause people to act differently then they usually do, living out fantasies as they do not have to connect to social authority when texting or using Facebook. This communication can allow people to talk more, even over great distances at their convenience and in the way they choose, but as we can see by little Jimmy here, who plays World of Warcraft eight hours a day, this can backfire as well. Since we are social creatures, we can say that one of our base wants or even needs is this connection to others, so I would say the internet is almost like the parasites in the classic movie Shivers by David Cronenberg. The parasites there forced people to act on their primitive desires of reproducing, as does the internet almost force you to communicate something you think of value, so the freedom/chaos of the scenario is noticeable. So the real question is can communication technology and an almost fantasy lifestyle be both good and evil? To answer that-FLIP
Billy Mays here with another FANtastic product, tired of being yourself all the time? Consider any part of your life boring at all? Well I have the solution for you, try using the internet. I know what you’re thinking, “The internet, what’s that?” but relax, it’s very simple. All you need to do is to comment on information provided by other people or create an online persona that shares what you want to share about yourself, and you can choose what to leave out! Now there are a lot of reasons people would do this, because they are bored, they want to live as someone else, they want to experience as much information as possible, and NOW YOU CAN! Why think of your life as ordinary when you can behave like the Tomcat Murr from the book by Hoffmann? Why not be like Murr and regard your everyday achievements as that of epic literature, after all that is what they are worth to you! After all, the other way to go is to having an ordinary boring biography like the character Kreisler, with information simply what you did and none of the flavor of what it mattered and what it connected to. Now how do I know that this kind of activity is really living in the sense that we define it, well- FLIP
Welcome back to Cooking with Intangibility, once again I’m your host, Bret Summers and today we’re going to cook up some Living. Now how do we make a complete sense of living? Well first I’m going to start with a nice omelet of the normal experiences you have, hanging out with friends, watching television, observing a beautiful sunset, the works. Next, we’re going to add some sauce of technology, which you may ask, is it really living if you are on a computer? To answer simply, yes, you are still interacting with people and it is still a different experience then the rest of reality thus it does impact your existence and should. Now this is a very complex sauce as it provides a lot of experiences that you would not have otherwise experienced, but is hampered by the fact that it is not real, nor even similar to reality, you can see other peoples realities, but you are not there to witness them yourself so they do not create as much of an impact. Even if Lisa on Facebook has enjoyed the Muse concert, you were not there, but you can still think it’s awesome that she went and be jealous, thus is the duality of this special ingredient: it adds another layer to life and human communication. And despite the games, Facebook friends (different then real friends), and youtube videos, real life is still real eggs. However, what will happen when the carton eggs get as good or even better than those produced by chickens? But onto the next-FLIP
“You’re not going to get away with this Cobra! The world leaders and the Joes will never go along with your plotting!”
“Ah-ha, but you have to, G.I. Jerks you see my top engineers have designed a phone that is so small that you can bring it with you everywhere you go! This will cause developers to fantasize about having even smaller and better phones, which can be their own computers, and the designs will make me millions!”
“Bad news Cobra, your plan isn’t perfect, you forgot that the Joes have access to third party developers who can make phones and computers as good as yours.”
“Forgot? I counted on it, now none of humanity will be argue with the progression and advancement of technology, it will happen exponentially as a parasite attaching to the community, and soon everyone will not be able to survive without the phones, and then not be able to survive without the computers, until finally everyone is living inside a false world and I can take control of the real one.”
“Well you’re right about one thing, we cannot argue with technology, the fantasy of wanting more that is not real in life is tempting enough for any scholar or writer, but we have a secret weapon. But this fake world does not have to be a false paradise for humanity to dwell in, it can be a realm for the human spirit to grow and express. We called upon our resources to get the famous Tony Prichard to give us consult, and he told us about how we blindly pay attention to authority (he did not speak to us for an entire class once and we still paid attention), and maybe people will notice how addictive and commanding this communication structure can be and know how to moderate. He brought up the idea of the period in a movie/game where a person has been bitten by a zombie but have not been turned yet. Perhaps this period is now, in technology, as we can still tell the difference between reality and fantasy, but we can see that on the horizon there is virtual reality or augmented reality out there that is better in some ways visually then what we see normally. So the value people put on what is “real” is what is going to defeat you Cobra.”
“COBRA SHALL PREVAIL!”
“At least now we know that our intrinsic value of reality is what is keeping us from completely worshipping the authority of technology, and knowing is half the battle. And the other half of the battle is-“ -FLIP
Now back to Planet Plurk, where we examine the extraordinary amounts of life that lurk in parts of the internet where we do not expect it, especially considering Plurk is intangible. Now unlike the jungles of youtube we discussed earlier, there are no predators or “trollers”, or at least few of consequence. Sites like Plurk and Facebook benefit from the idea that you can add only the people you want to add, which means there is very little disagreeing or if there is it is friendly. Now considering that there are people sharing art, whether made by themselves are not, sharing references, sharing ideas, how can this place not be considered reality? Is it not the same as sitting in a room with a lot of people talking to each other, or at least somewhat similar? Well as we examine the geography of Plurk we can see that that is not the case, multiple conversations of human interaction are going on, with WRITTEN word. The written word on Plurk is like an ever-changing landscape, with contexts changing shape, plurks (words posted by a user, or plurker) being forgotten in the vast time-line, plurks commented on a few times and the forgotten or ones carried to over two hundred comments. Perhaps now we can define reality more clearly, as in real life people can only do or say one thing at once, while in plurk they can switch between different ideas quickly and add what they want when they want. However, both are connected by the reality of thought, what people/plurkers are thinking is still done by the same method in real life and in Plurk, the scenario has changed but the ideas behind it have not. Organisms flourish differently in these scenarios, some plurk more than talking others talk more than plurking, this ratio defines what type of communication they are good at or have adapted to. Now, a freestyle plurk is intruiging, after all in Plurk you can add in colored verbs before a statement (username thinks, feels, wonders, etc.) or you can choose to leave this out. The impacts of this is you are saying something more personal or concrete, as the verbs show that a plurker could be plurking simply to plurk. Perhaps in another context real life is just one freestyle plurk at a time.
CLICK
I would like to think that reality is more than channel flips of what I see and what I want to see, I really would, but where else can I search for meaning? It is easier to say that we have a choice of whether or not to accept technology than to lay down how difficult the choice is to deny it when virtual reality comes up. My roommate Noah’s computer broke, so he started spending a lot of time outside or playing video games, and I wondered what that would feel like, to be severed from my symbiotic relationship, would I find more meaning or less? I think that in the end, the amount of meaning I find in anything is determined by me (obviously), and that both technology and real life are not better than one another (as I have been going back and forth with) but are just two parts of a whole, one based off the other and visa versa. I know facebook is bad because it distracts me, but I also know it is good because I can be in contact with friends who live in Tacoma. I think that I am content to be both a zombie and a human my entire life (at least for now), because brains sound delicious, but so does other food too. Maybe if I am lucky, it means more ways to find whatever the fuck meaning is, more ways to read equals more ways to learn. After all, reality is not always real life.
Tony Prichard
English 203
4/30/10
Direct in Colorvision
Welcome to the evening news, this is Tom Tucker, today we see an outbreak of a new kind of parasite: technology, here’s Jim Whistler with the scoop.
Thanks Tom, as the years have gone by there have been astounding developments to this pastime we call “living” namely the addition of technology, screens appearing everywhere displaying information that we use or abuse constantly. After the certainty of human survival and dominance is achieved then technology really has two alternative purposes, luxury and communication between people. However, this new communication can cause people to act differently then they usually do, living out fantasies as they do not have to connect to social authority when texting or using Facebook. This communication can allow people to talk more, even over great distances at their convenience and in the way they choose, but as we can see by little Jimmy here, who plays World of Warcraft eight hours a day, this can backfire as well. Since we are social creatures, we can say that one of our base wants or even needs is this connection to others, so I would say the internet is almost like the parasites in the classic movie Shivers by David Cronenberg. The parasites there forced people to act on their primitive desires of reproducing, as does the internet almost force you to communicate something you think of value, so the freedom/chaos of the scenario is noticeable. So the real question is can communication technology and an almost fantasy lifestyle be both good and evil? To answer that-FLIP
Billy Mays here with another FANtastic product, tired of being yourself all the time? Consider any part of your life boring at all? Well I have the solution for you, try using the internet. I know what you’re thinking, “The internet, what’s that?” but relax, it’s very simple. All you need to do is to comment on information provided by other people or create an online persona that shares what you want to share about yourself, and you can choose what to leave out! Now there are a lot of reasons people would do this, because they are bored, they want to live as someone else, they want to experience as much information as possible, and NOW YOU CAN! Why think of your life as ordinary when you can behave like the Tomcat Murr from the book by Hoffmann? Why not be like Murr and regard your everyday achievements as that of epic literature, after all that is what they are worth to you! After all, the other way to go is to having an ordinary boring biography like the character Kreisler, with information simply what you did and none of the flavor of what it mattered and what it connected to. Now how do I know that this kind of activity is really living in the sense that we define it, well- FLIP
Welcome back to Cooking with Intangibility, once again I’m your host, Bret Summers and today we’re going to cook up some Living. Now how do we make a complete sense of living? Well first I’m going to start with a nice omelet of the normal experiences you have, hanging out with friends, watching television, observing a beautiful sunset, the works. Next, we’re going to add some sauce of technology, which you may ask, is it really living if you are on a computer? To answer simply, yes, you are still interacting with people and it is still a different experience then the rest of reality thus it does impact your existence and should. Now this is a very complex sauce as it provides a lot of experiences that you would not have otherwise experienced, but is hampered by the fact that it is not real, nor even similar to reality, you can see other peoples realities, but you are not there to witness them yourself so they do not create as much of an impact. Even if Lisa on Facebook has enjoyed the Muse concert, you were not there, but you can still think it’s awesome that she went and be jealous, thus is the duality of this special ingredient: it adds another layer to life and human communication. And despite the games, Facebook friends (different then real friends), and youtube videos, real life is still real eggs. However, what will happen when the carton eggs get as good or even better than those produced by chickens? But onto the next-FLIP
“You’re not going to get away with this Cobra! The world leaders and the Joes will never go along with your plotting!”
“Ah-ha, but you have to, G.I. Jerks you see my top engineers have designed a phone that is so small that you can bring it with you everywhere you go! This will cause developers to fantasize about having even smaller and better phones, which can be their own computers, and the designs will make me millions!”
“Bad news Cobra, your plan isn’t perfect, you forgot that the Joes have access to third party developers who can make phones and computers as good as yours.”
“Forgot? I counted on it, now none of humanity will be argue with the progression and advancement of technology, it will happen exponentially as a parasite attaching to the community, and soon everyone will not be able to survive without the phones, and then not be able to survive without the computers, until finally everyone is living inside a false world and I can take control of the real one.”
“Well you’re right about one thing, we cannot argue with technology, the fantasy of wanting more that is not real in life is tempting enough for any scholar or writer, but we have a secret weapon. But this fake world does not have to be a false paradise for humanity to dwell in, it can be a realm for the human spirit to grow and express. We called upon our resources to get the famous Tony Prichard to give us consult, and he told us about how we blindly pay attention to authority (he did not speak to us for an entire class once and we still paid attention), and maybe people will notice how addictive and commanding this communication structure can be and know how to moderate. He brought up the idea of the period in a movie/game where a person has been bitten by a zombie but have not been turned yet. Perhaps this period is now, in technology, as we can still tell the difference between reality and fantasy, but we can see that on the horizon there is virtual reality or augmented reality out there that is better in some ways visually then what we see normally. So the value people put on what is “real” is what is going to defeat you Cobra.”
“COBRA SHALL PREVAIL!”
“At least now we know that our intrinsic value of reality is what is keeping us from completely worshipping the authority of technology, and knowing is half the battle. And the other half of the battle is-“ -FLIP
Now back to Planet Plurk, where we examine the extraordinary amounts of life that lurk in parts of the internet where we do not expect it, especially considering Plurk is intangible. Now unlike the jungles of youtube we discussed earlier, there are no predators or “trollers”, or at least few of consequence. Sites like Plurk and Facebook benefit from the idea that you can add only the people you want to add, which means there is very little disagreeing or if there is it is friendly. Now considering that there are people sharing art, whether made by themselves are not, sharing references, sharing ideas, how can this place not be considered reality? Is it not the same as sitting in a room with a lot of people talking to each other, or at least somewhat similar? Well as we examine the geography of Plurk we can see that that is not the case, multiple conversations of human interaction are going on, with WRITTEN word. The written word on Plurk is like an ever-changing landscape, with contexts changing shape, plurks (words posted by a user, or plurker) being forgotten in the vast time-line, plurks commented on a few times and the forgotten or ones carried to over two hundred comments. Perhaps now we can define reality more clearly, as in real life people can only do or say one thing at once, while in plurk they can switch between different ideas quickly and add what they want when they want. However, both are connected by the reality of thought, what people/plurkers are thinking is still done by the same method in real life and in Plurk, the scenario has changed but the ideas behind it have not. Organisms flourish differently in these scenarios, some plurk more than talking others talk more than plurking, this ratio defines what type of communication they are good at or have adapted to. Now, a freestyle plurk is intruiging, after all in Plurk you can add in colored verbs before a statement (username thinks, feels, wonders, etc.) or you can choose to leave this out. The impacts of this is you are saying something more personal or concrete, as the verbs show that a plurker could be plurking simply to plurk. Perhaps in another context real life is just one freestyle plurk at a time.
CLICK
I would like to think that reality is more than channel flips of what I see and what I want to see, I really would, but where else can I search for meaning? It is easier to say that we have a choice of whether or not to accept technology than to lay down how difficult the choice is to deny it when virtual reality comes up. My roommate Noah’s computer broke, so he started spending a lot of time outside or playing video games, and I wondered what that would feel like, to be severed from my symbiotic relationship, would I find more meaning or less? I think that in the end, the amount of meaning I find in anything is determined by me (obviously), and that both technology and real life are not better than one another (as I have been going back and forth with) but are just two parts of a whole, one based off the other and visa versa. I know facebook is bad because it distracts me, but I also know it is good because I can be in contact with friends who live in Tacoma. I think that I am content to be both a zombie and a human my entire life (at least for now), because brains sound delicious, but so does other food too. Maybe if I am lucky, it means more ways to find whatever the fuck meaning is, more ways to read equals more ways to learn. After all, reality is not always real life.
Monday, April 26, 2010
Writing about nothing
To first give you some insight into myself (after all that's what blogs are for), I am not someone who jumps on a "fan bandwagon" easily, it takes a lot for a show or video game to make me want to talk about it. However, I found that shows with exceptional writing are the kind that draw me into it, and by exceptional I do not exactly mean the general plot (for example I enjoy Lost but it does not fall into this kind of writing). I mean fantastical writing, like the crazy shows on adultswim that they show at 11:00 or 12:00 at night, shows featuring this type of character:
Xavier: Renegade Angel
So my question to myself is why? Why connect to these types of writing so far from the "reality" of television in appearance, and even more in discourse? Obviously one of the reasons people read or see or desire fantasy is because of its distance to reality, everyone wants to see or perhaps escape into a world where things are different. Why do you think Harry Potter sold so well? Now imagine that it's the fantasy of a troubled child with bad parents, in other words most of us at some point in our lives.
But I digress...the writing I'm talking about is different then this kind of fantasy, some of the writing I am talking about may connect with the real world in terms of similar language, but the rest are characters and situations that are completely different then anything else I have read or seen on television. The strange thing to me is that no one else has heard of or enjoys this, if I mention Delocated, Superjail!, or perhaps even Ugly Americans (it's a newer show, so I don't know how popular it is) very few people will know what I am talking about. It reminds me of how not a lot of my peers (or at least the ones I know) have read the book Stranger in a Strange Land, because these shows put you into a world where you cannot grok anything (look it up if you don't know what it means). The situation of the Tomcat Murr is similar as he understands the human world from a cats point of view, and learns things differently because of it, so you enter these worlds of writing and get mindfucked by the uniqueness of it. His life is incredible to him because he percieves it in a different and more interesting way then Johann, and this gives him more self-confidence, after all if you woke up one day and life was fun you'd think the same way, that it was because of you.
I think the reason I envy these writers is because they have such freedom in what they say, as it does not have to apply to anything, but as long as I'm writing this, blogging into the vastness of space I think I'll start writing the way I want to and not try to sound smart.
Starting.....now
ok, listen up, open your ears and brain-ears for information that will affect you, how deeply i do not know but i'm a firm believer that if something is mentioned and someone is listening it will affect them no matter how minor or inconsequential, if those terms really do exist
the time is 2:46, the mood is chill yet slightly nervous, the song playing is "Electric Demons" by Electric Six, probably followed by "Tomorrow Comes Today" by the Gorillaz
music is another form of communication so i should discuss it in the context of the other writings, what about unique sounding music? ahhhh, that's interesting, when i think of music i think of how it evokes different moods, so maybe it is the same with the writing that was just discussed by intellectual_grizz, if writing evokes moods maybe the reason unique writing effects me is because what i strive to connect with is the mood of ridiculousness, a connectedness of being to an area that is simply crazy but the kind of crazy where i can relax and let it happen because it's funny
side note- the punctuation is as such because i am used to speaking to well-known individuals over IM so i thought perhaps this would allow me to communicate in a more personal fashion to the absence of a reader
so why do i crave this ridiculous state? as with most hobbies avoiding responsability is a definite part of it, but i'd like to think that i can enjoy something for a good reason
perhaps like the Tomcatt Murr I want everything to be an adventure, a journey of some sort mentally or otherwise and with these shows there is no destination, there is simply a sense of rambling on that can be quoted to the point where it is never really dead, it is just waiting to be rewatched
i remember reading a kurt vonnegut book called "A Man Without A Country", his last book, as i recall, and it talked about how a lot of literature in the world is really about how god damn hard life is, as are most television shows, movies, etc. there HAS to be drama, there HAS to be a struggle
now my idea is that yes life is a struggle but maybe not the kind that other people tell us it is, maybe it is like the philosopher in the video told us, the struggle is determining if we are truly behaving rightly, or going back to class doing what is MEANINGFUL
but this does not mean that dealing with other people has to be a struggle, that dealing with the work forced upon us has to be more then a part of our schedule, or that the general bad things that happen to us on a day to day basis externally
in other words: the true fight is within (did that sound as nerdy and dramatic as i think it did? probably, fuck it i think i'm almost done with my blog by now)
lastly, todays class reminded me a great deal of the greek philosopher Cicero, who wrote the six mistakes that man make:
1. the delusion that personal gain is made by crushing others
2. the tendency to worry about things that cannot be changed or corrected
3. insisting that a thing is impossible because you cannot accomplish it yourself.
4. refusing to set aside trivial preferences
5. neglecting development and refinement of the mind
6. Attempting to compel others to believe and live as we do
in translation= CHILL BITCH
thank you invisible audience, it's been fun
Monday, April 5, 2010
Strategic Communication
I think that one of the concepts that I am most interested in is the decisions people make about what to say when they talk to each other. The readings I have done for Parasites so far have made me think about how more often people go beyond simple thinking. Say you think of the act of speaking to people as a game, where you plan your moves to have a good conversation as you go and to keep a forward progression going (avoiding awkward silences). Then what you say is not based on answering what they have said, it is about finding the best way to communicate what you mean in a way that shows your intended relationship with the person, continues the conversation, etc. Another level of thought I had recently was how people bring up a lot of similar topics (the most basic being what classes do you have, what is your major, etc.) and how if enough people talk about the same things there starts being a metagame of knowing when and how to bring up these topics to everyone can relate. An example is the phrase "We need to talk" which if said seriously first makes me think "Oh shit!" then makes me automatically start thinking about ways to explain myself or plan a strategy to communicate with someone not happy with me. The result of this kind of thinking is a parasite which infects people to have "safe" words or terms that immediately form a familiar context.
The question comes to mind, why have this more complicated system of expression when the whole idea of being an individual is to be yourself as much as possible to attract people who are similar? Well, this is true but because of how expansive language is there are many different ways to put sentences together to reveal some of the speakers individuality, sometimes more then the message itself. Slang is an example (and also a parasite), giving other people an idea of what you are like even if you are barely saying anything at all, after all how much you care about grammer or swearing is important.
In the reading by Austin, he discusses how philosophers and grammarians know that the definition of a statement or question is difficult to see if thought about conciously. This made me think about how easily the brain can interpret and judge people by very small acts or phrasing on their part, and how little we think about the process itself (like how few understand the internet or computers only more personal).
What came to mind when I thought of the most awkward person ever oblivious to this logic I thought of this:
(although having a talking cat would be pretty awesome).
One way conversations work is that people reveal what they think of themselves or what they think of others by using words like "I" or "You" to preface their comments and show that they are trying to connect (like we discussed in class). However what matters is what they choose first, and this is where the aforementioned parasites come in. Have you ever known people who were such good friends that they could communicate almost entirely with inside jokes? This is an example of as you get to know someone the parasite gets deeper into your understanding of hubs of thought to branch off of in conversation becomes clearer. My closest friends and I can almost speak entirely in quotes from youtube videos, movies, tv shows, etc. because we understand the context that each others lives have. In essence, our words become more valuable and meaningful because we can see the process in which they are formed, which is perhaps the level of understanding that "I" or "You" really aspire for: knowing someone well enough to understand how their brain processes information and filters it through their context or place in life.
Different means of communication also serve different purposes of expression, as it is easier to express other interests or ideas through different means. When it comes to facebook, plurk, twitter, etc. you can talk about things that come into your head that would not normally come up in conversation, or you can show people stuff that would not make sense if you just mentioned it to them.
For example try explaining this video to someone in a normal conversation without sounding crazy:
Words that go out on facebook or the internet in general are different then talking to someone , it is almost as if you are speaking to an entity with no visible reactions whatsoever, and most of the comments you get are going to be good (though not as personal as speaking). This begs the question if you make a post, and nobody comments on it, did it really exist? After all you already knew or believed what you said and if no one else noticed then it never made an impact so its existance is negligable. However, you still do not know if anyone looked at it, or in other words how much communication took place in general, for example say I post this link:
If human curiosity is what it is then that means most people who read this will open it , but I do not know what kind of impact it will have. Maybe someone will spend the rest of the day exploring ytmnd.com or maybe they will not enjoy it and learn to avoid it, either way I was not witness to their thought process so I will never know unless I am told. This relationship between poster and commentor allows people to connect to each others similar ideas and learn what they do or do not like. This goes back to the beginning of the blog (oh so long ago) where it gives a parasite that can be used to discuss things later.
First blog done!.....I'm gonna go Plurk now
-Sam out
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
