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.
Sunday, May 31, 2009
This Better Work
href="file:///C:%5CUsers%5CBrian%5CAppData%5CLocal%5CTemp%5Cmsohtmlclip1%5C01%5Cclip_filelist.xml">
Monday, May 18, 2009
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.
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.
Monday, May 11, 2009
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.
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.
Sunday, May 3, 2009
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.
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.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)