High on the Hibrane

A couple of weeks ago, Nanotext mentioned that any good Science-Fiction is more about the present than the future. I had never really realized that, but it immediately made sense. So upon beginning Postsingular, I was excited to find that the issues in the book reflected issues that are interesting to me and are hardly ever considered in novels.

The first topic I would like to discuss is the theme of drugs in Postsingular. Big Pig seems to serve as a good metaphor for Hallucinogenic substances. Those who log into the Big Pig are able to think about complicated scientific and philosophical endeavors far beyond anything humans had yet discovered. However once they get off the pig, they can't remember exactly anything from their experience, yet know that it was fantastic. I find this to be very similar to hallucinogen's because like with the pig those who use them often feel as though they develop a deep cosmic bond with the universe, yet upon coming down from their experience, have only a faint memory of it, and tend to feel slightly stupefied for a while.

The non-pig user in Postsingular is often characterized by Sudocoke usage. I find this interesting because the term sudocoke implies synthetic, which in turn implies that pharmaceutical companies create the drug in a future where corporations have finally been able to openly cash in on addiction. While still addictive, Postsingular society seems to see sudocoke addiction as good entertainment, and not reason for intervention, while those on the Big Pig are offered help. This could be related to the way we view addicitons to narcotics as opposed to alcohol in today's society. While any sort of drug use which is not allowed by the state is deemed 'abuse,' binge drinking is viewed as good entertainment (e.g. any reality show ever except maybe 'Meet the Mormons').

I also found it interesting that Postsingular made use of the 'nano.' With pop culture, it is easy to imagine future robots as large human sized things, while in fact they will most likely be microscopic, yet far more frightening. It is the same way we viewed computers in the fifties. Imagining room sized mechanisms, while in present day, most of us carry computers smaller than our fists around in our pockets.

Perhaps as has happened in the past, the future will look nothing like how we imagined it, but our ideas on how society would function given new technologies is a direct critique on the way we view ourselves and the issues of our time.

This Better Work

href="file:///C:%5CUsers%5CBrian%5CAppData%5CLocal%5CTemp%5Cmsohtmlclip1%5C01%5Cclip_filelist.xml">

Over the last few weeks, many of the books and discussions in class have caused me to question the notion of 'I.' It appears that the being one would describe as a person, is in fact comprised of multiple entities, personalities, wishes, needs.

Early in The Filth, I began to think that Ned Slade was the manifestation of Greg Feely's desires, a sexy escape for a boring man who watches too much porn. Tony the cat was the one desirable 'real' thing in Greg's life, is why he was always drawn back to Greg's life. However after the discovery that there is nothing particular special about Tony, as he is simply many cats, we find that Greg's life is no more 'real' than Ned's.

I feel that this is where the notion of multiple facets of 'I' come into play. The importance or specificity of what 'real life' is, is questioned by the Ned/Greg dichotomy. It is unclear who existed first, Ned or Greg. And it doesn't really matter because neither are possible without the existence of the other.

If we look at this when discussing the 'cyborg' phenomenon that exists presently and will only continue to do so, I think we will find that the argument of how much we should allow technology to replace our own genetic hardware, and thus our daily lives, is far more convoluted than we often realize. Who is to say what 'reality' or 'humanness' really is? Certainly when attempting to define what is human, we can hardly find a definition that really excludes technology, and likewise much of technology mirrors humanness. And rightly so, because as humans throughout history have created and defined what technology is, they have simultaneously evolved , biologically and socially, along with their creations.

I would argue that a necessary part of every person's life is some level of technology that is integral to the way they go about living. And thus, trying to hold on to a certain level of humanness is in fact missing the point of what we value in people. We don't value others on a genetic level or how much their lives are not controlled by technology. We generally value others on their goodness, intelligence trustworthiness, and the like. Those who fear losing humanity to technology should re-evaluate what being a human is, and holding on to what is really valuable, rather than that which is merely tangible.

Tits!

In class last Friday, we discussed pornography, and debated if it could be construed as art, obscenity, or something in between. Between that discussion, as well as the over-the-top amount of pornography in The Filth, I tried to determine what pornography was, and if obscenity and pornography were synonymous.

Today during Nanotext's office hours, located in the Crack of the Humanities building, Nano brought up the notion of the banality inherent to obscenity. The more I thought about it, the more this seemed a perfect way to examine the issue.

Pornography is, if nothing else banal. Considering pornographic movies, one who views this media can be guaranteed horrible acting and a ludicrous storyline. Furthermore, if one knows the genre of the film, they can, without a doubt be sure of knowing exactly how the story will end. It is this complete lack of originality which ensures the obscene. These films are most definitely not art, as there is nothing to be gained from watching them. The predictable visceral response from the intended audience verifies this.

However, it feels irresponsible to imagine that nothing can be gained from viewing pornographic films. The inherent outlandish nature creates an unitentional parody of itself which is not by any means worthless. Obscenity then, should not be determined by the government, which would of course use useless standards and in the process endanger 'valid' forms of art. Besides, using the definition of banality to determine obscenity would immediately encompass other genres outside of pornography such as the tear-jerker romantic comedy or the horror film. Obviously these genres are generally a bit less generic than pornography, yet the expected visceral action is the same, and the ending, especially in the case of the romantic comedy, is obvious from the get-go.

Why then, is there all the fuss over pornography? Obviously in the case of minor exploitation it is quite rational. Just as in many other industries, there are dangers posed by the occupation which most would agree deems it fit only for adults. However for enfranchised and willing adults, it is safe to assume that the occupation is far less dangerous than working in a coal mine, or a saw mill. By far most criticisms of pornography are on moral grounds. A film only becomes obscene when it assumes the hackneyed 'storyline' of all of its predecessors, the way a romantic comedy or horror film does.
In fact it may be safe to assume that pornography is really the least dangerous of the three, as only pornograpahy makes little effort to hide this banality, obscene though it may be.

RiboCalypse

Over the last few weeks I've been trying to comprehend a somewhat clearer vision of what the future might look like. I'm not so much interested in the exact capabilities of these technologies as how their integration into our lives will affect us, and how our culture will respond. I wonder too what form they might take, digital? biological?...

Which brings me to Technopalypse and Ribofunk. Both film and book offer striking views of the future, yet differing on important points. Yet I was most interested in how the material differed on the importance of how our lives would change through the technology of the future. Many of the speakers in Techopalypse seem to be exitedly awaiting 'the future,' and considering it in a parallel way to the coming of the Messiah in Judeo-Christian lore. I thought it was so ludicrous how most of these futurists who had most likely rejected any sort of mainstream religion, could talk about the 'singularity' in this way. At least the last interviewee actually quoted the Old Testament to legitimise his point, other wise it would have been ridiculous(insert irony point here) Those in Technopalypse seem to think that with the 'singularity' will come god or god like capabilities.

I much preferred Ribofunk's take on the future.

The idea that the future is not mechanical but biological is vastly different than what I am used to, but more than that, I appreciated Di Filippo's vision of what impact this conception of the future would have on the culture and day to day routines of future individuals. The notion that the future's benefits would be restricted by who could pay for them is not only a cutting critique of today, but also a realistic viewpoint of how the future might look.

What I liked most about Ribofunk was that the idea of the man made evolutionary adaptations which both the book as well as Technopalypse foresee, are treated in a way that is both eerie and original. What would change if we were so integrated with our technology that it overwhelmed us? Ribofunk's super organism is the closest conception to the omnicient, god-like creature of the singularity, yet it is an abomination.

I feel that the class materials thus far have made me think a lot about the future. But they have not made me reach the fatalism of either fearing technology like the end of the world, or awaiting it like the messiah. I am simply becoming aware of the fact that we as a culture need to prepare for these innovations in a way which will allow us to make the correct decisions about how to use them.

Cheetahs On My Feet

Watching Technopalypse, and for that matter talking about he future, and what life will be like as technology becomes more advanced, one gets the feeling that when the future is a distinct place, and once it gets here, everyone will realize it. However, people don't seem to realize that life changes in small and nearly imperceptible ways. People are rarely genuinely surprised when new forms of technology change their lives.

However, reading Ribofunk is an excellent source for understanding this. Those in the stories do not simply wander around talking about how futuristic everything is. They simply live their lives within the new constructs. Besides, though the technology available to these future citizens is mind boggling, their lives seem more affected on the day to day basis by the aesthetic and cultural possibilities, rather than what I imagine as more 'constructive' opportunities.

One excellent examples this gives us can be taken from the first chapter of Ribofunk. Teenagers use gene enhancing chemicals that heighten their senses to a degree that things never before possible can be easily achieved, but use them for the same sorts of juvenile 'nonsense' a today's teenagers .

Though the cultural aspects of Ribofunk's science are overwhelming on the personal basis, the author also gives a striking view of the governmental and business effects of genetic modification and engineering. It is a fact that the creation of most technology is created for capitalist gain. The future that we see in Ribofunk has obviously been pioneered by big business, and even more than today, Non-Governmental Organizations are possibly more powerful than any country. In fact, the only current institutions that can be found in Ribofunk's future are the NGO's like the IMF and the WTO.

Out of all the materials we have been given, I think that Ribofunk offers the most plausible illustration of what the future has in store for a world citizen. Unlike Technopalypse, Ribofunk doesn't try to sell as a heaven or hell like vision of the future, it simply forges the future and the present into a probable marriage of culture and technology.

The Alterity of Photography

In my last blog I wrote:

" For the sake of argument, I will say that objective reality and truth did not exist until the invention of the photograph. Before the invention, the reality of any experience was only as real as the recollections of those who had seen the experience and those whom they had told about it."

Reading Radical Alterity, I came across the notion that photographs do not give an accurate representation of the object they are trying to photograph. Rather than give context by seeing the object in its natural state, the photograph isolates the object and does not allow to see what is happening before or after that particular point in time, or even what exists directly outside of the clear boundaries of the photograph. While these are valid criticisms, I cannot allow myself to fully buy into that idea.

As a history major, I am often asked to analyze a photograph to gain a clearer understanding of the time period and subject which it documents. Never have I better understood the adage "a picture is worth a thousand words" as when i have been asked to learn in this way. Of course, to analyze a picture in this manner does take some degree of prior context.

All forms of media have shortcomings. No matter how well one writes, no description can give a completely accurate depiction of a scene, event, or feeling. Videorecording has much the same problems as photograph, just not to the same extent. Also with video, some portion of the recording is nearly guaranteed to be excessive, whereas a good photograph is far more likely to articulate what the photographer wishes to convey.

Constructions

The photograph makes life not one fluid entity but instead a construction of an infinite number of small pieces. For the sake of argument, I will say that objective reality and truth did not exist until the invention of the photograph. Before the invention, the reality of any experience was only as real as the recollections of those who had seen the experience and those whom they had told about it.

Literature too, is a construction built out of systems of rules, plot, narration, etc. The Other in literature is the refusal of its ‘Creators’ to acknowledge the boundaries that keep them locked within the the illusion of story. This refusal to acknowledge the boundaries keeps literature within the confines of rules which have less and less to do with the present as our species grows and evolves into new patterns of organiztion. Contemporary culture presses against the old ways; the stories, the limitations, and with the growing presnce of the digital medium, it attempts to mutate out of the old ways into something new.

The materialists, and notably Karl Marx percieved human action as an unfolding and constantly transforming system which would culminate into a final stage. For the purposes of this class, the final stage is a singularity of people, the superorganism. In order for the singularity to arise, the ways in which we tell our stories, and in effect, percieve our realities, must be allowed to progress beyond its current boundaries.

I see the cut up as an attempt to reconcile the old way of literature into the new ways of communication that are becoming more ingrained into our lives daily. With the cut up, one can intersperse 'classical' modes of communication with images, sound bites, or video. The infinite supply of these sorts of media that we have at our disposal thanks to the internet can be easily placed within our digital texts. Now, rather than quote a movie quote or song, we can embed the original within our modes of communication to more effectively communicate our points, as well as draw our ideas and expressions from a larger pool of thought. This again connects us with the idea of the superorganism. We can use already created images, sounds, etc. to make our own points and arguments.

This seems to be a merging between the ideas of what could be called plagiarism as well as free and inspirated thought. It is neither one or the other. And yet it encompasses the potential of the contemporary world.