Its two thirty A.M. and I'm thirsty.
I've been feeling the need to write quite a bit lately (return to a scholarly atmosphere?) but when I do I don't usually like what soaks through. Things look sound and feel so much better in my head.
I've been trying to decide in what ways my freshmen year of college changed me, but to avoid some type of confounding effect I think I'll just let people tell me when they see fit. I'll try not to be too surprised if nobody ever speaks up.
I don't even really know who I'm writing this for. not myself I suppose, otherwise I wouldn't bother posting it to this blog; which I see as more of a wanna-be.
Today I wondered what it would be like to be able to write your thoughts down as fast as, and then faster than, you thought them up. If such a thing were even possible. could you just sit down and write yourself out of thoughts? then what? achieve some sort of zen like state? The meditation of the fiction writer. Then I wondered what it would be like if the person who could out write his or her mind could only think of mundane things. It's not as if this person is unintelligent, just not especially creative. nothing like a good curse to go along with a superpower. I think if we could all write as fast as we could think that communication would be improved a great deal. we'd all write what we wanted to say, look it over and then edit it and then represent it. the whole process would be quite speedy of course, us being speed writers. oh wait, that's just censorship, scratch that. I wonder how many words you think a minute. I believe that it would be impossible to measure because, to my knowledge, no one actually can write as fast as they can think. But would anyone like to venture a guess? I think its fairly likely that the whole idea is damned impossible. the faster we learn to write down our ideas, the faster the ideas come into our heads. After all, it takes longer for your brain to simply tell your hands what to do then it does for a word or an idea to form. Still, I like the concept. maybe my super hero will be a genius, who eventually comes to suffer from short term memory loss. so this guy has tons of fantastic ideas flying out of his head, but can't ever remember all of them, so he teaches himself to be able to write down his ideas as fast as he thinks them so that he can get full use of his brilliant mind despite his disability. hell. it could be a movie. And don't say that he could just use a tape recorder because you can't talk as fast as you can think either, and you can re-read your ideas a hell of a lot faster than you can replay them.
It's three three A.M. and I'm still thirsty.
Tuesday, September 29, 2009
Monday, June 8, 2009
Nano final
3. Blogs: Read all the blog entries for the quarter from one of your peers—hopefully someone you don’t know well. Using the text of your own blog and his/her blog compare and contrast your experiences in the course.
In my experience, the blogs in our Nanotexts class have been almost like the arms of our super organism. Arms in the sense that they have grasping hands, but in their nature they are more like the branches of a tree. The branches that take ideas from the class as nutrients and reach out and grab new ideas and, hopefully, bring them back into the class; with this in mind, I chose the blog of someone I don’t know well, but I made sure that the our two blogs contained a few similar ideas, so I can better show how those ideas are connected to the class.
For this part of my final I chose to read Kathryn Keyser’s blog. The main difference I noticed was that her blogs, it seemed, were more directly based of what had happened in class recently and than from there she juxtaposed her own ideas with what had happened in class; while my posts tended to be more abstract and less directly related to class. Aside from this, another interesting thing I noticed was that both of us spoke about religion early on in our blog posts. For Kc, as she goes by on both plurk and her blog, it was a question of religion’s place in the future, as well as with technology in general. She seems to think of it as a crutch that humanity has used in difficult times in the past. I think she believes that religion could be done away with is some of the modern difficulties of living were removed from the equation. In my blog I was defining my own faith, to a certain extent. It’s not so much our differing views on religion that I find interesting, rather that it came up in both of our blogs at roughly the same time. I do not specifically recall spending a great deal of time in class discussing religion, but according to our blogs, it is something we both found important alongside other topics of class discussion. One section of her post on religion that I find particularly interesting was:
“religion is something that societies have adapted and clung to in times of hardship as far back as science can find. So when there is no longer struggle and thus no longer a need for religion will the world change?”
In a class that constantly asks its students to take an analytical view of their society, as well as the society they want to see in the future; both the present and future pervasiveness of religion seems to be an important question. It is also a difficult one. The idea of their no longer being struggle in the world seems farfetched to me, but perhaps what Kc is envisioning a world that has sufficiently calmed down for people not to need the crutch of religion anymore. Kc also gives another question that was raised thanks to her blog as well as what happened in class:
“And if it does change will it be for the better, or is religion something that all societies need regardless of scientific and logical thought otherwise.”
Here Kc seems to be addressing Humanities need for spirituality. All of the books we read in class that discuss the future have a place for spirituality. Perhaps the bigger problem, the bigger question, is where will humanity turn to for spirituality in a world where religion no longer exists? Will it be difficult for people to find their own forms of spirituality? In one of my posts I feel that I attempted to answer these questions, or at least, predict the way in which solutions will come about
“mainstream religion has quite a few problems, it needs some serious reform, or to be disbanded. Hell, I myself might have some of the answers, but I think that it’s something that people need to figure out for themselves.”
I feel like the class blogs are interconnected, they flow into each other like a lakes connected by one river. With class over maybe the river will start to dry up, maybe it will not be able to make it to some of the lakes, but even if this does occur, we can still visit these lakes and sample their water, and find out that a percentage of this water flowed from a certain river. Our blogs are our others, but in some ways our others are connected. This only makes sense though; shouldn’t the others of a super organism be a super organism themselves?
3. Animals and Machines: our texts have been filled with both of these things. Working with Ribofunk and Ronell & Kac’s text Life Extreme, make a case for the difference between animals and machines. Is there such a difference? And where do humans fit in all of this?
The initial question posed seems quite simple to me. A fundamental difference between animals and machines is that machines are manmade and animals, classically, are not. I feel, however, that neither Ribofunk nor Life Extreme disagree with my statement. I think the question raised in Ribofunk and Life Extreme is: when humans genetically modify animals for specific uses, how are they then different from machines? Life Extreme primes the charge, so to speak, by giving us a picture of a featherless chicken on pages sixteen and seventeen, then compares them to humans interestingly enough. Life Extreme also shows us a mouse on page seventy-nine with a human replacement ear growing on its back. These animals have all been bred with a specific purpose in mind, which is human use, or, perhaps more realistically, human consumption. These animals differ from machines only somewhat. On one hand, these animals have been created, or modified, to meet certain human needs and wants. A machine it created for the same reasons. As for the differences between the two, as of right now these animals aren’t completely made by humans, they are only genetically modified and then sometimes bred to make them more economic to produce, or more desirable to consumers. All that we are able to do as of right now is tweak what evolution has already given us. This line is blurring rapidly however; Iranian scientists have created not one, but an entire flock of sheep that consist of fifteen percent human cells and eighty five percent normal sheep cells. The intension of creating these animals is still like farming them however, as once the sheep have a high enough percentage of human parts, their organs can be harvested for human transplant. This becomes similar to ideas in Ribofunk, where cultivars, or splices, are part human part animal creations that serve specific rolls in society, but are only considered human if their genes are more than fifty percent human.
As of right now, the primary difference in my mind, between genetically modified animals and machines, is that genetically modified animals are still farmed and harvested, whereas machines are basically employed; that is, a machine is designed to perform a specific task from creation to decommission. In Ribofunk we see both genetically modified animals and machine employees at a level where they are in direct competition with each other for work. The only difference between the two being how they are made, and what they are made of; so there are two ways to look at it, if you wish to define something by its function, then ultimately, even today, machines and genetically modified animals are unique, since throughout both the overall goal is to make human life simpler. If you choose to define something by what it is made of, however, then the line between machines and animals will remain distinct; at least until you start to see biomechanics, such as humans using brain implants or other robotic enhancements working alongside traditional biological functions.
If you ask the question: Where do humans fit in to all of this, then I think you also have to consider the question, what is the difference between humans, machines, and genetically enhanced animals? First of all we need to accept that humans are animals. Then if we consider the idea of humans having robotic enhancements within their bodies, and pair that with the popular futuristic idea of humans modifying their own genes we seem to be getting the three quite mixed together. Beyond simple gene modification, it seems likely that humans may want more than modified human genes in the future; I believe it is likely that humans will want to have animal genes mixed into their own genes as well. For example, a pair of antlers like the ones that Jinx gets in “After School Special”. With this in mind it seems that humans, machines and genetically enhanced animals are all moving towards each other in the future; towards a singularity of sorts where humans have all the precise combinations of animal, human and machine that suits them best. I also don’t believe that it is farfetched to believe that if a new human-machine-animal is wanted or needed, he she or it will simply be created. Traditional birth is far too limited, and may frankly become impossible. Although singularity may be the future, I do not think that animals and machines will be done away with. People will still want machines to do the dirty jobs for us, and will still want animals to eat, or at least to keep as pets.
4.Doubles/Doppelgang: Beginning with our first novel, The Invention of Morel, the theme of doubles or copies has been coming up again and again. First, explain how you see the notion of the double in each of the thematic sections of the course:
1. The photographic double: Morel, The Ticket that Exploded, Film in general
2. The biological double: the clone, the splice, the twin
3. The double achieved through other means: brainwashing, time travel, pataphysics
Using these three types as a departure point explore how the concept of the double changes with the technology that produces it. Does the notion of just one double hold in the twenty-first century?
From a chronological point of view, the first double we could look at is perhaps the painting, a precursor to the photograph. If we were to characterize this double, we would say that it is one that does not move though space or time, at least not in the conventional means, the means of the being it was created after. It also only relays the outward characteristics of its original, and these characteristics are subject to the artist’s personal tastes and choices. The next double we see is that which occurs in writing, or what might be called, the biographical double. This double usually attempts to follow the original’s movements through space and time, as well as give accurate, though not ever complete, recount of the original’s characteristics and perspectives, both inward and outward. The next on the list would then be photography, photography is unique from the list in the sense that the original’s features can matched, unaltered, for one specific point in time. Next is film, which is really only a series of, usually, twenty four pictures a second; with sound added in later on. Now an individual’s double can be analyzed throughout a certain time span; a video also allows for a greater amount of data on the original to be analyzed. The Invention of Morel gives us a very advanced idea of what I think of as the recorded double also referred to as the photographic double. Morel’s invention allows every aspect of the originals’ lives over a certain amount of time. Even weather is preserved with his system. Like a video, however, the doubles only move throughout a certain period of time. In some ways Morel’s doubles are not doubles at all, since the machine kills whatever it records. It seems that the doubles become jealous of their original counterparts and have the power to suck the original’s life away; almost like the full realization of the notion that a photograph steals one’s soul.
To say that a twin is one’s double had always seemed odd to me. Twins may, or may not look alike, and may or may not share habits and traits. In all honesty it’s just as likely for your twin to be an exact opposite as it is for them to be just like you. A twin is very unique, however, in the sense that twins do not stem from one individual. I think this idea raises the question that if twins have doubles, aside from the other twin, are those doubles also to be considered twins? The notion of a doppelganger almost certainly stems from feuding twins, and therefore makes the idea of having a double much more sinister and frightening. Moving away from twins, the clone seems to fit the classic scheme of a double much tighter, since it seems likely that many clones will act similarly to the original; that they will almost be programmed like machines. Even if the clones become their own people, they still share identical genetic composure with their original. The idea of a clone-doppelganger has also become pervasive throughout literature and film. The idea of a splice as a double seems very vague to me; it seems more like that a splice is likely to be a result of the combination of two doubles, which would result in something different altogether. An other of sorts, but my guess is that the whole would be greater than the sum of its parts.
The double that comes from brainwashing is very interesting because it involves the takeover of the original’s body. The emergent double will therefore be physically identical to the original, but that is more or less where the similarities stop. This can result from not only brain wash, but also from hypnosis or the re-emergence of repressed psychological traits. Time travel gives us a double that is an exact copy of the original from a different point in time. Finally there is the double that stems from the pataphor, unlike the metaphorical character because in a metaphor the characters, the originals, are changed in the sense that they are symbolically compared to something else. A pataphor is different because it allows characters to remain the same, but instead changes the world in which they exist. The doubles in a pataphors raise the question not how you affect the world around you and cause it to change, but how uncontrollable changes in the world affect you.
For most of history the double’s intention for technology is to create the most perfect copy of the original that is possible, it is only recently that we see any deviation from this, that is, a desire for a double to not be a perfect copy. I believe this is tied in with the concept of multiple doubles in the twenty first century. You can make all the home movies you want, take thousands of pictures that showed just how you looked, just what you said at any given time. Maybe people are getting tired of seeing themselves and want to tweak things to male every double unique in some way. Morpheus called it “residual self image”, and despite what you think of The Matrix, I think this idea exists. People are becoming more interested in what they want to look like instead of simply what they do look like at any given time. In a way, I feel that the change in our doubles is reflective of a movement to make a human into art, just like what was stated in Technocalyps.
In my experience, the blogs in our Nanotexts class have been almost like the arms of our super organism. Arms in the sense that they have grasping hands, but in their nature they are more like the branches of a tree. The branches that take ideas from the class as nutrients and reach out and grab new ideas and, hopefully, bring them back into the class; with this in mind, I chose the blog of someone I don’t know well, but I made sure that the our two blogs contained a few similar ideas, so I can better show how those ideas are connected to the class.
For this part of my final I chose to read Kathryn Keyser’s blog. The main difference I noticed was that her blogs, it seemed, were more directly based of what had happened in class recently and than from there she juxtaposed her own ideas with what had happened in class; while my posts tended to be more abstract and less directly related to class. Aside from this, another interesting thing I noticed was that both of us spoke about religion early on in our blog posts. For Kc, as she goes by on both plurk and her blog, it was a question of religion’s place in the future, as well as with technology in general. She seems to think of it as a crutch that humanity has used in difficult times in the past. I think she believes that religion could be done away with is some of the modern difficulties of living were removed from the equation. In my blog I was defining my own faith, to a certain extent. It’s not so much our differing views on religion that I find interesting, rather that it came up in both of our blogs at roughly the same time. I do not specifically recall spending a great deal of time in class discussing religion, but according to our blogs, it is something we both found important alongside other topics of class discussion. One section of her post on religion that I find particularly interesting was:
“religion is something that societies have adapted and clung to in times of hardship as far back as science can find. So when there is no longer struggle and thus no longer a need for religion will the world change?”
In a class that constantly asks its students to take an analytical view of their society, as well as the society they want to see in the future; both the present and future pervasiveness of religion seems to be an important question. It is also a difficult one. The idea of their no longer being struggle in the world seems farfetched to me, but perhaps what Kc is envisioning a world that has sufficiently calmed down for people not to need the crutch of religion anymore. Kc also gives another question that was raised thanks to her blog as well as what happened in class:
“And if it does change will it be for the better, or is religion something that all societies need regardless of scientific and logical thought otherwise.”
Here Kc seems to be addressing Humanities need for spirituality. All of the books we read in class that discuss the future have a place for spirituality. Perhaps the bigger problem, the bigger question, is where will humanity turn to for spirituality in a world where religion no longer exists? Will it be difficult for people to find their own forms of spirituality? In one of my posts I feel that I attempted to answer these questions, or at least, predict the way in which solutions will come about
“mainstream religion has quite a few problems, it needs some serious reform, or to be disbanded. Hell, I myself might have some of the answers, but I think that it’s something that people need to figure out for themselves.”
I feel like the class blogs are interconnected, they flow into each other like a lakes connected by one river. With class over maybe the river will start to dry up, maybe it will not be able to make it to some of the lakes, but even if this does occur, we can still visit these lakes and sample their water, and find out that a percentage of this water flowed from a certain river. Our blogs are our others, but in some ways our others are connected. This only makes sense though; shouldn’t the others of a super organism be a super organism themselves?
3. Animals and Machines: our texts have been filled with both of these things. Working with Ribofunk and Ronell & Kac’s text Life Extreme, make a case for the difference between animals and machines. Is there such a difference? And where do humans fit in all of this?
The initial question posed seems quite simple to me. A fundamental difference between animals and machines is that machines are manmade and animals, classically, are not. I feel, however, that neither Ribofunk nor Life Extreme disagree with my statement. I think the question raised in Ribofunk and Life Extreme is: when humans genetically modify animals for specific uses, how are they then different from machines? Life Extreme primes the charge, so to speak, by giving us a picture of a featherless chicken on pages sixteen and seventeen, then compares them to humans interestingly enough. Life Extreme also shows us a mouse on page seventy-nine with a human replacement ear growing on its back. These animals have all been bred with a specific purpose in mind, which is human use, or, perhaps more realistically, human consumption. These animals differ from machines only somewhat. On one hand, these animals have been created, or modified, to meet certain human needs and wants. A machine it created for the same reasons. As for the differences between the two, as of right now these animals aren’t completely made by humans, they are only genetically modified and then sometimes bred to make them more economic to produce, or more desirable to consumers. All that we are able to do as of right now is tweak what evolution has already given us. This line is blurring rapidly however; Iranian scientists have created not one, but an entire flock of sheep that consist of fifteen percent human cells and eighty five percent normal sheep cells. The intension of creating these animals is still like farming them however, as once the sheep have a high enough percentage of human parts, their organs can be harvested for human transplant. This becomes similar to ideas in Ribofunk, where cultivars, or splices, are part human part animal creations that serve specific rolls in society, but are only considered human if their genes are more than fifty percent human.
As of right now, the primary difference in my mind, between genetically modified animals and machines, is that genetically modified animals are still farmed and harvested, whereas machines are basically employed; that is, a machine is designed to perform a specific task from creation to decommission. In Ribofunk we see both genetically modified animals and machine employees at a level where they are in direct competition with each other for work. The only difference between the two being how they are made, and what they are made of; so there are two ways to look at it, if you wish to define something by its function, then ultimately, even today, machines and genetically modified animals are unique, since throughout both the overall goal is to make human life simpler. If you choose to define something by what it is made of, however, then the line between machines and animals will remain distinct; at least until you start to see biomechanics, such as humans using brain implants or other robotic enhancements working alongside traditional biological functions.
If you ask the question: Where do humans fit in to all of this, then I think you also have to consider the question, what is the difference between humans, machines, and genetically enhanced animals? First of all we need to accept that humans are animals. Then if we consider the idea of humans having robotic enhancements within their bodies, and pair that with the popular futuristic idea of humans modifying their own genes we seem to be getting the three quite mixed together. Beyond simple gene modification, it seems likely that humans may want more than modified human genes in the future; I believe it is likely that humans will want to have animal genes mixed into their own genes as well. For example, a pair of antlers like the ones that Jinx gets in “After School Special”. With this in mind it seems that humans, machines and genetically enhanced animals are all moving towards each other in the future; towards a singularity of sorts where humans have all the precise combinations of animal, human and machine that suits them best. I also don’t believe that it is farfetched to believe that if a new human-machine-animal is wanted or needed, he she or it will simply be created. Traditional birth is far too limited, and may frankly become impossible. Although singularity may be the future, I do not think that animals and machines will be done away with. People will still want machines to do the dirty jobs for us, and will still want animals to eat, or at least to keep as pets.
4.Doubles/Doppelgang: Beginning with our first novel, The Invention of Morel, the theme of doubles or copies has been coming up again and again. First, explain how you see the notion of the double in each of the thematic sections of the course:
1. The photographic double: Morel, The Ticket that Exploded, Film in general
2. The biological double: the clone, the splice, the twin
3. The double achieved through other means: brainwashing, time travel, pataphysics
Using these three types as a departure point explore how the concept of the double changes with the technology that produces it. Does the notion of just one double hold in the twenty-first century?
From a chronological point of view, the first double we could look at is perhaps the painting, a precursor to the photograph. If we were to characterize this double, we would say that it is one that does not move though space or time, at least not in the conventional means, the means of the being it was created after. It also only relays the outward characteristics of its original, and these characteristics are subject to the artist’s personal tastes and choices. The next double we see is that which occurs in writing, or what might be called, the biographical double. This double usually attempts to follow the original’s movements through space and time, as well as give accurate, though not ever complete, recount of the original’s characteristics and perspectives, both inward and outward. The next on the list would then be photography, photography is unique from the list in the sense that the original’s features can matched, unaltered, for one specific point in time. Next is film, which is really only a series of, usually, twenty four pictures a second; with sound added in later on. Now an individual’s double can be analyzed throughout a certain time span; a video also allows for a greater amount of data on the original to be analyzed. The Invention of Morel gives us a very advanced idea of what I think of as the recorded double also referred to as the photographic double. Morel’s invention allows every aspect of the originals’ lives over a certain amount of time. Even weather is preserved with his system. Like a video, however, the doubles only move throughout a certain period of time. In some ways Morel’s doubles are not doubles at all, since the machine kills whatever it records. It seems that the doubles become jealous of their original counterparts and have the power to suck the original’s life away; almost like the full realization of the notion that a photograph steals one’s soul.
To say that a twin is one’s double had always seemed odd to me. Twins may, or may not look alike, and may or may not share habits and traits. In all honesty it’s just as likely for your twin to be an exact opposite as it is for them to be just like you. A twin is very unique, however, in the sense that twins do not stem from one individual. I think this idea raises the question that if twins have doubles, aside from the other twin, are those doubles also to be considered twins? The notion of a doppelganger almost certainly stems from feuding twins, and therefore makes the idea of having a double much more sinister and frightening. Moving away from twins, the clone seems to fit the classic scheme of a double much tighter, since it seems likely that many clones will act similarly to the original; that they will almost be programmed like machines. Even if the clones become their own people, they still share identical genetic composure with their original. The idea of a clone-doppelganger has also become pervasive throughout literature and film. The idea of a splice as a double seems very vague to me; it seems more like that a splice is likely to be a result of the combination of two doubles, which would result in something different altogether. An other of sorts, but my guess is that the whole would be greater than the sum of its parts.
The double that comes from brainwashing is very interesting because it involves the takeover of the original’s body. The emergent double will therefore be physically identical to the original, but that is more or less where the similarities stop. This can result from not only brain wash, but also from hypnosis or the re-emergence of repressed psychological traits. Time travel gives us a double that is an exact copy of the original from a different point in time. Finally there is the double that stems from the pataphor, unlike the metaphorical character because in a metaphor the characters, the originals, are changed in the sense that they are symbolically compared to something else. A pataphor is different because it allows characters to remain the same, but instead changes the world in which they exist. The doubles in a pataphors raise the question not how you affect the world around you and cause it to change, but how uncontrollable changes in the world affect you.
For most of history the double’s intention for technology is to create the most perfect copy of the original that is possible, it is only recently that we see any deviation from this, that is, a desire for a double to not be a perfect copy. I believe this is tied in with the concept of multiple doubles in the twenty first century. You can make all the home movies you want, take thousands of pictures that showed just how you looked, just what you said at any given time. Maybe people are getting tired of seeing themselves and want to tweak things to male every double unique in some way. Morpheus called it “residual self image”, and despite what you think of The Matrix, I think this idea exists. People are becoming more interested in what they want to look like instead of simply what they do look like at any given time. In a way, I feel that the change in our doubles is reflective of a movement to make a human into art, just like what was stated in Technocalyps.
Friday, June 5, 2009
A creative endeavor
John rolled his fingers across the table. Each finger following the one before it almost like a stream, pinky to index finger and then back the other way. He had a seductive way of moving his hands; it was just one of the man’s subtly attractive features that lured women to him without them realizing it was happening. The bar he was sitting in right now, Rust, it was called, was even one that he frequented to get in on a bit of deviant behavior, and that thought had occurred to him several times already tonight. Several times he would also wish that he was at this particular bar for the reasons he usually was, but that simply wasn’t the case. The man sitting across from him didn’t give a shit. He didn’t notice how John’s fingers moved. He didn’t know why John normally came to this bar, and he was completely ignorant to the number of semi-inebriated woman John had left with on previous nights. It’s not that they were uncomfortable around each other, but john, for once in his life, was not sure how to act.
Roland was not worried about how to act, or at least, he wasn’t any more worried socially than he was at any given time. He looked nervous, but aside from social situations, not too much bothered him. He had never been to Rust before tonight, he preferred to drink at home, and at six foot three, two hundred and twenty pounds, he saved a lot of money that way. Besides that, he figured it was the best idea, given his present situation. That situation also applied to his views on meeting women, which was not something he was good at anyway. At his size, one would be inclined to think that he would stand out more in a crowd. This is only natural, but not the case. He may have been tall, but when someone pictured him in his or her mind, Roland wasn’t a tall person. He wasn’t muscular or reserved either, nor was he the opposite of these things, he simply was not. Before you knew it you would forget his name altogether and then he disappeared. You might say he was the opposite of John; he had the subtle knack of not being noticed. This could be considered a genuine talent given his current position.
“This guy of ours is… well he’s pretty late I guess…” said John, desperate to break the silence.
“People often are.” Said Roland, calmly.
“ Yea, I mean he must be nervous, this is probably a big deal for people that aren’t old pros like us huh?”
“I’d hardly consider us pros John. This won’t be as easy as it was for us the first times.”
“Well, right, I guess I was trying to make a joke. Oh hey look at that girl at the bar, I think I picked her up once, Christ I hope she doesn’t recognize me…”
“I doubt it, that would have been a long time ago. Before you left Particlecorp. Wait, no, if it had been that long this wouldn’t be an issue, you wouldn’t remember her . John do you mean to tell me that you’ve been prowling this bar since your incident at Particlecorp?”
“You’re a sharp one Roland… I…”
“You asshole. You’ve got to be fucking kidding.”
“Take it easy man, I mean, keep your voice down, I mean, I’ve been using John as my name, and only going to places where there aren’t any temps to check your blood. They aren’t too many places that don’t anymore.”
“Great. You avoid the places where they don’t need to look for us for the places they will be looking for us. Ah Fuck John, what if they figured out we were here, nabbed our guy and now they’re probably strapping him up with a wire. He’ll have to help them out or go to jail. They might be watching us right now, waiting for us to slip up. Then they’ll nab us too. Fuck it, I’m leaving, now.” Roland got up and started walking towards the door, he was moving quickly, but not running.
John, catching up to Roland just as he was walking out the door, “Take it easy Rol, we can’t pass up this chance.”
“The hell we can’t, you drive,” said Roland, moving to the passenger side of the small car that they shared, the door unlocked and opened as soon as it recognized his hand, and started up quietly as soon as John touched the handle on the other side. It ran on a combination of solar power and battery, as cars most did. Cars themselves were a rarity these days, public transit had become efficient and economic before the switch to clean powered cars had been made. Driving had mostly faded out of the fore grounds society, but was making a comeback now that it was clean. The place where they had been, however; was not only off the public transit grid, but was also off the guided road system. You had to drive yourself to this place. Gutsy. John liked the kind of people that frequented it, but that apparently was the cause of their current situation, be it real or imagined.
Just our luck, though John, “you think that car is following us or is it just… on its own?”
Roland had already pulled a large handgun from under the seat, not that he ever really was the think-twice kind of guy. The gun looked like a larger-than-life semi-automatic pistol, but had an elongated barrel that was attached to the rest of the gun by a metal part that was specifically designed to look like a spine with ribs that went around the barrel, but didn’t connect at the bottom. This allowed the barrel to dynamically change size, depending on the ammunition. The barrel also typically expanded after a shot had been fired to better disperse heat. “When I vape this guy you better put the pedal down, ok buddy?”
“Hold on, don’t kill him, we don’t even know if he’s a fed!”
“Fine” Roland tapped a few things into the computer on his wrist, which in turn relayed instructions to his gun. He swiftly twisted in the seat and fired, shooing out the back window and into the engine of the car behind them. At first it looked like the car had hit a nasty pothole, but that was only because Roland’s shot was a little low. A decent sized explosion destroyed the engine, front axle, and probably gave the passengers a few nasty burns to deal with. John pushed the car’s accelerator to the floor his nerves were now visible in his face; Roland on the other hand looked strangely calm, much calmer than he had looked inside Rust. “We need a place to ditch the car, stay off the grid.”
They found a suitable place after driving for about fifteen minutes, an empty field with not too much plant life, low fire risk. Roland gave a few instructions to the spine-gun from his wrist computer and then shot the car towards the back of the engine. At first nothing happened, Roland threw the gun into the driver’s side window, as well as has wrist computer. The car sat quiet for just a few more seconds; John followed Roland’s unspoken advice and moved further away from the thing. They were both still retreating when a large, but perfectly controlled blast destroyed the car from the inside out. A blast of heat caught up to them, as well as a mild sonic shockwave, but that was it. The car, gun and computer were completely gone.
“Bitchin.” Muttered John.
“Efficient, but a shame.” Said Roland.
“Ah forget the car, we can get a new one, but who needs cars anyway?”
“Not the car, the gun. That gun was probably worth fifteen cars.”
“No way, did Aldor give it to you?”
“Well one of his guys did, yea.”
“Shit, well don’t worry about it, Aldor could probably buy a spine-gun for everyone in New Mexico”
“Yep, and we’re working to keep it that way”
“Hey don’t get all economic on me now Rol. We’re above that stuff remember, we have the greater good at heart here. Aldor is just a means to the end, financing.”
“Right, I’ve just been having this feeling lately that even though we’re trying to stop one set of assholes we’re just helping another one.”
“Aldor’s temps aren’t so bad; they’ve only killed a few people. We aim to save the whole damn planet. He is a greedy bastard though.”
“That’s what I was referring to. He’s using us to keep his business alive.”
“Let’s talk about this later. Rifttech is still the biggest problem. Let’s get moving though, we’re still a couple kilometers outside town.”
The walk was uneventful, apparently the police weren’t that hot on their trail, or maybe they had actually blown up a civilian’s car back at Rust. It was also completely possible, Roland realized, that they simply weren’t prepared to deal with a spine gun, and had decided to back off. Roland found comfort in realizing that John was, for the most part, right. All that Aldor Creff wanted was to keep his massive temp empire from slowing down. His company and revolutionized nanotechnology almost twenty years ago with the invention of the first nanobot, now referred to as a “temp” due to their temporary power supplies. The temps were used for a variety of purposes, including medicine and military, but there most widely used for surveillance. Many establishments now had a temp hub, a box about the size of a rubik’s cube, at the entrance. The temps would enter a body entering the building and scan DNA, as well as check for concealed weapons. It was against the law to keep a record of someone’s DNA, the temps could only run it against criminal records, and then it had to be deleted. It was common knowledge, however; that many shady establishments illegally modified temps to raise alarms when people with certain DNA came knocking. The temps were accepted socially because they only had a limited power supply, the best technology available allowed a temp to have about a twenty-four hour power supply, most commercial temps however, only ran for about ten hours at a time, and charged when businesses were closed; when their power supply ran out, the temps had to return to the hub and connect and charge. During this time, an authorized person could change their programming, or even stop the temps from going back out of the hub all together. The system was highly controlled.
What Roland and John were trying to stop was the fast arriving scenario where nanobots constructed other nanobots on their own. This removed a level of control from the system by allowing nanobots to be in charge of programming other nanobots. This sort of technology would have hit global markets about a year ago, but Roland, which is not his real name, had stopped it. He had been working as head of security for a company called “Microsoft”, who were on the verge of creating self-replicating nanobots, when he decided to go rogue and blow up a large section of their Seattle based nanotechnology laboratory with a respectable amount of illegal explosives. The attack had sufficiently crippled Microsoft, and Aldor’s massive company had been able to buy it out a year later.
John had done his part as well when, about eight months ago, he hacked into the mainframe and a company called Int.Tech, Particlecorp being yet another pseudonym. Int.Tech had been getting close to developing self-replicating nanobots as well, and during this time John was working for Int.Tech as a mid level programmer. One night, on his own authority, he hacked into the Int.Tech mainframe and spread a virus throughout their network that effectively deleted most of their data on self-replicating nanobots and even deleted John’s personal records with the company. His attack had been so successful that Int.Tech went completely bankrupt soon afterwards.
John and Roland had only met each other about four months ago, thanks to Aldor Creff who had swept both of the fugitives up and put them in hiding. Now rumor was that a third company, Rifttech, was close to developing self replicating nanobot of their own; it was at this point that Aldor decided it would be good idea to set John and Roland against them, since they had been so successful in the past. John and Roland were too happy to help at first, partly because Aldor was the only person keeping them out of jail, but also because John and Roland both didn’t want self-replicating nanobots to become reality. The man that they were planning to meet at Rust was a Rifttech employee who was supposedly going to help them get inside Riftech and sabotage it.
Both Roland and John readily realized that if they were caught, they were most likely dead. Most civilians had no real use for self-replicating nanobots, it was the government who wanted them created. Uncle Sam was livid, and his war hammer was seeking John and Roland with the ungodly efficiency that only the U.S. government could muster.
In short, John and Roland were currently America’s most wanted. National terrorists who were employed by a fat cat CEO who wanted to keep his massive company bloated with capital for as long as possible. Personally, John and Roland, they were just afraid of a grey goo scenario, and were pretty damn devoted to stopping it from ever having a chance of taking place.
They got back to their apartment at about three in the morning, both of them exhausted. Before he went to sleep, Roland came into Johns room and spoke his mind, “Listen, I’m gonna let you explain this to Aldor tomorrow, ok? You’re better with word than I am anyway. Oh and I understand if you don’t want to tell him about my spine-gun, that’s ok, but I think you should, I think it’s a good idea that we have one”
“Sure, thanks a lot.”
“Yea. Goodnight.”
Roland switched out the lights for John who quickly fell into a not entirely peaceful sleep.
Roland was not worried about how to act, or at least, he wasn’t any more worried socially than he was at any given time. He looked nervous, but aside from social situations, not too much bothered him. He had never been to Rust before tonight, he preferred to drink at home, and at six foot three, two hundred and twenty pounds, he saved a lot of money that way. Besides that, he figured it was the best idea, given his present situation. That situation also applied to his views on meeting women, which was not something he was good at anyway. At his size, one would be inclined to think that he would stand out more in a crowd. This is only natural, but not the case. He may have been tall, but when someone pictured him in his or her mind, Roland wasn’t a tall person. He wasn’t muscular or reserved either, nor was he the opposite of these things, he simply was not. Before you knew it you would forget his name altogether and then he disappeared. You might say he was the opposite of John; he had the subtle knack of not being noticed. This could be considered a genuine talent given his current position.
“This guy of ours is… well he’s pretty late I guess…” said John, desperate to break the silence.
“People often are.” Said Roland, calmly.
“ Yea, I mean he must be nervous, this is probably a big deal for people that aren’t old pros like us huh?”
“I’d hardly consider us pros John. This won’t be as easy as it was for us the first times.”
“Well, right, I guess I was trying to make a joke. Oh hey look at that girl at the bar, I think I picked her up once, Christ I hope she doesn’t recognize me…”
“I doubt it, that would have been a long time ago. Before you left Particlecorp. Wait, no, if it had been that long this wouldn’t be an issue, you wouldn’t remember her . John do you mean to tell me that you’ve been prowling this bar since your incident at Particlecorp?”
“You’re a sharp one Roland… I…”
“You asshole. You’ve got to be fucking kidding.”
“Take it easy man, I mean, keep your voice down, I mean, I’ve been using John as my name, and only going to places where there aren’t any temps to check your blood. They aren’t too many places that don’t anymore.”
“Great. You avoid the places where they don’t need to look for us for the places they will be looking for us. Ah Fuck John, what if they figured out we were here, nabbed our guy and now they’re probably strapping him up with a wire. He’ll have to help them out or go to jail. They might be watching us right now, waiting for us to slip up. Then they’ll nab us too. Fuck it, I’m leaving, now.” Roland got up and started walking towards the door, he was moving quickly, but not running.
John, catching up to Roland just as he was walking out the door, “Take it easy Rol, we can’t pass up this chance.”
“The hell we can’t, you drive,” said Roland, moving to the passenger side of the small car that they shared, the door unlocked and opened as soon as it recognized his hand, and started up quietly as soon as John touched the handle on the other side. It ran on a combination of solar power and battery, as cars most did. Cars themselves were a rarity these days, public transit had become efficient and economic before the switch to clean powered cars had been made. Driving had mostly faded out of the fore grounds society, but was making a comeback now that it was clean. The place where they had been, however; was not only off the public transit grid, but was also off the guided road system. You had to drive yourself to this place. Gutsy. John liked the kind of people that frequented it, but that apparently was the cause of their current situation, be it real or imagined.
Just our luck, though John, “you think that car is following us or is it just… on its own?”
Roland had already pulled a large handgun from under the seat, not that he ever really was the think-twice kind of guy. The gun looked like a larger-than-life semi-automatic pistol, but had an elongated barrel that was attached to the rest of the gun by a metal part that was specifically designed to look like a spine with ribs that went around the barrel, but didn’t connect at the bottom. This allowed the barrel to dynamically change size, depending on the ammunition. The barrel also typically expanded after a shot had been fired to better disperse heat. “When I vape this guy you better put the pedal down, ok buddy?”
“Hold on, don’t kill him, we don’t even know if he’s a fed!”
“Fine” Roland tapped a few things into the computer on his wrist, which in turn relayed instructions to his gun. He swiftly twisted in the seat and fired, shooing out the back window and into the engine of the car behind them. At first it looked like the car had hit a nasty pothole, but that was only because Roland’s shot was a little low. A decent sized explosion destroyed the engine, front axle, and probably gave the passengers a few nasty burns to deal with. John pushed the car’s accelerator to the floor his nerves were now visible in his face; Roland on the other hand looked strangely calm, much calmer than he had looked inside Rust. “We need a place to ditch the car, stay off the grid.”
They found a suitable place after driving for about fifteen minutes, an empty field with not too much plant life, low fire risk. Roland gave a few instructions to the spine-gun from his wrist computer and then shot the car towards the back of the engine. At first nothing happened, Roland threw the gun into the driver’s side window, as well as has wrist computer. The car sat quiet for just a few more seconds; John followed Roland’s unspoken advice and moved further away from the thing. They were both still retreating when a large, but perfectly controlled blast destroyed the car from the inside out. A blast of heat caught up to them, as well as a mild sonic shockwave, but that was it. The car, gun and computer were completely gone.
“Bitchin.” Muttered John.
“Efficient, but a shame.” Said Roland.
“Ah forget the car, we can get a new one, but who needs cars anyway?”
“Not the car, the gun. That gun was probably worth fifteen cars.”
“No way, did Aldor give it to you?”
“Well one of his guys did, yea.”
“Shit, well don’t worry about it, Aldor could probably buy a spine-gun for everyone in New Mexico”
“Yep, and we’re working to keep it that way”
“Hey don’t get all economic on me now Rol. We’re above that stuff remember, we have the greater good at heart here. Aldor is just a means to the end, financing.”
“Right, I’ve just been having this feeling lately that even though we’re trying to stop one set of assholes we’re just helping another one.”
“Aldor’s temps aren’t so bad; they’ve only killed a few people. We aim to save the whole damn planet. He is a greedy bastard though.”
“That’s what I was referring to. He’s using us to keep his business alive.”
“Let’s talk about this later. Rifttech is still the biggest problem. Let’s get moving though, we’re still a couple kilometers outside town.”
The walk was uneventful, apparently the police weren’t that hot on their trail, or maybe they had actually blown up a civilian’s car back at Rust. It was also completely possible, Roland realized, that they simply weren’t prepared to deal with a spine gun, and had decided to back off. Roland found comfort in realizing that John was, for the most part, right. All that Aldor Creff wanted was to keep his massive temp empire from slowing down. His company and revolutionized nanotechnology almost twenty years ago with the invention of the first nanobot, now referred to as a “temp” due to their temporary power supplies. The temps were used for a variety of purposes, including medicine and military, but there most widely used for surveillance. Many establishments now had a temp hub, a box about the size of a rubik’s cube, at the entrance. The temps would enter a body entering the building and scan DNA, as well as check for concealed weapons. It was against the law to keep a record of someone’s DNA, the temps could only run it against criminal records, and then it had to be deleted. It was common knowledge, however; that many shady establishments illegally modified temps to raise alarms when people with certain DNA came knocking. The temps were accepted socially because they only had a limited power supply, the best technology available allowed a temp to have about a twenty-four hour power supply, most commercial temps however, only ran for about ten hours at a time, and charged when businesses were closed; when their power supply ran out, the temps had to return to the hub and connect and charge. During this time, an authorized person could change their programming, or even stop the temps from going back out of the hub all together. The system was highly controlled.
What Roland and John were trying to stop was the fast arriving scenario where nanobots constructed other nanobots on their own. This removed a level of control from the system by allowing nanobots to be in charge of programming other nanobots. This sort of technology would have hit global markets about a year ago, but Roland, which is not his real name, had stopped it. He had been working as head of security for a company called “Microsoft”, who were on the verge of creating self-replicating nanobots, when he decided to go rogue and blow up a large section of their Seattle based nanotechnology laboratory with a respectable amount of illegal explosives. The attack had sufficiently crippled Microsoft, and Aldor’s massive company had been able to buy it out a year later.
John had done his part as well when, about eight months ago, he hacked into the mainframe and a company called Int.Tech, Particlecorp being yet another pseudonym. Int.Tech had been getting close to developing self-replicating nanobots as well, and during this time John was working for Int.Tech as a mid level programmer. One night, on his own authority, he hacked into the Int.Tech mainframe and spread a virus throughout their network that effectively deleted most of their data on self-replicating nanobots and even deleted John’s personal records with the company. His attack had been so successful that Int.Tech went completely bankrupt soon afterwards.
John and Roland had only met each other about four months ago, thanks to Aldor Creff who had swept both of the fugitives up and put them in hiding. Now rumor was that a third company, Rifttech, was close to developing self replicating nanobot of their own; it was at this point that Aldor decided it would be good idea to set John and Roland against them, since they had been so successful in the past. John and Roland were too happy to help at first, partly because Aldor was the only person keeping them out of jail, but also because John and Roland both didn’t want self-replicating nanobots to become reality. The man that they were planning to meet at Rust was a Rifttech employee who was supposedly going to help them get inside Riftech and sabotage it.
Both Roland and John readily realized that if they were caught, they were most likely dead. Most civilians had no real use for self-replicating nanobots, it was the government who wanted them created. Uncle Sam was livid, and his war hammer was seeking John and Roland with the ungodly efficiency that only the U.S. government could muster.
In short, John and Roland were currently America’s most wanted. National terrorists who were employed by a fat cat CEO who wanted to keep his massive company bloated with capital for as long as possible. Personally, John and Roland, they were just afraid of a grey goo scenario, and were pretty damn devoted to stopping it from ever having a chance of taking place.
They got back to their apartment at about three in the morning, both of them exhausted. Before he went to sleep, Roland came into Johns room and spoke his mind, “Listen, I’m gonna let you explain this to Aldor tomorrow, ok? You’re better with word than I am anyway. Oh and I understand if you don’t want to tell him about my spine-gun, that’s ok, but I think you should, I think it’s a good idea that we have one”
“Sure, thanks a lot.”
“Yea. Goodnight.”
Roland switched out the lights for John who quickly fell into a not entirely peaceful sleep.
Monday, May 25, 2009
mind
I've been feeling odd lately. Too odd to complete a blog post on time? maybe, maybe not, but I at least tricked myself into thinking that I could not do it when I should have. (in regards to last weeks blog, which I did not complete) In all honestly I've been feeling pretty damn sick over the past week. Odd symptoms mixed with nerves and panic over those symptoms. I'm not trying to make excuses for a missing blog here, I have a point. Over the past week I've been having some interesting experiences over the the minds power to create, or alternatively control or reduce symptoms. If you get some chest pain and start to think for even a second that you're having a heart attack, it's likely that your arm will all of a sudden start to hurt. A rather unfortunate confounding-effect, or maybe you actually are having a heart attack. Sometimes I feel like my heart could stop beating entirely, and as long as no body told me my heart had stopped, I would be fine. I just finished reading "I Hope I Shall Arrive Soon" which is basically all about the human mind. this also brings me back to TTTE in which a scenario in described in which a person is immersed in water that is the same temperature as the human body and then left in total darkness and silence. This apparently leads to the feeling of separation of mind from body. The passage also states that most people cannot stand it and ask to be let out quite quickly. I want to try it. I can see some problems, I myself am very familiar with water, all one would really have to do would be to kick around and splash up some water. In his short story, Dick basically creates a flawless version of what TTTE describes. Another thing I wonder is what brain activity would be like from the inside if all body activity was removed. It's said that when one sense is lost, others become stronger to compensate for that loss. spend one hour outside on a dark night and that statement proves itself. So I try to imagine what it would be like if all the senses were lost. would all that extra computing power be put to the remaining brain functions, which basically boil down to imagination and self meditation, or is the type of computing power that can only be put into sensations? Would it be lost without its intended use? is imagination a sense in itself? I tend to think it is and that all that brain power could lead to some interesting results. The closest I suppose I've ever been to this is a dream. I've even had a few experiences of somewhat lucid dreams in which in I have a supernatural control of my surroundings. The dreams are not as long as I would like them to be and often my control is flawed of fails all together. I've also always wanted to have a dream lasting a long time take place in one night. Time is very subjective in dreams, but mine have never seen to last more than a few hours (it seems) that I can remember.
Now, onward to something completely different, this is sort of related to Postsingular, but only in the way black is related to white.
I got a strange idea up in the woods on Saturday night, here's what happened. Me and a few of my friends walked up to the tower in the arboretum at about midnight with no flashlights or cellphones. we just walked and relied on our night vision and in few cases, I followed Seth purely by the sound of his footsteps, though he was about fifty feet in front of us, which is not something I believe I am capable of normally. Anyway we made it to the tower and there were a few other people up there enjoying the night. I couldn't see their faces, not tell their race. It was like they were shadows with voices. So the idea I got from it was a way to meet new people. Two people enter a pitch black room, not too big, but not claustrophobic. These people find each other, and my idea is that they hold hands in the middle, like a hand shake sort of, but frozen. Then these people just talk and get to know each other, no physical judgment would be possible, and those things are much easier to get past once you know someone by their character and personality. If you were feeling really bold, you could even get your friends to set you up on a "blind date" (har har). I ran the idea past my room mates and they brought up potential issues of trust, which is legitimate, so naturally you would want this to be a somewhat controlled environment. Any way, I had been thinking of that along side Postsingular where the orphidnet lets people see everything about each other. Black vs. White. Obviously it wouldn't be for everyone, but I would be willing to give it a try.
I guess that's it for the class-mandated section blog. It hasn't been easy for me, and I'm not real proud of most of my entries. I'll probably still post, but infrequently.
Now, onward to something completely different, this is sort of related to Postsingular, but only in the way black is related to white.
I got a strange idea up in the woods on Saturday night, here's what happened. Me and a few of my friends walked up to the tower in the arboretum at about midnight with no flashlights or cellphones. we just walked and relied on our night vision and in few cases, I followed Seth purely by the sound of his footsteps, though he was about fifty feet in front of us, which is not something I believe I am capable of normally. Anyway we made it to the tower and there were a few other people up there enjoying the night. I couldn't see their faces, not tell their race. It was like they were shadows with voices. So the idea I got from it was a way to meet new people. Two people enter a pitch black room, not too big, but not claustrophobic. These people find each other, and my idea is that they hold hands in the middle, like a hand shake sort of, but frozen. Then these people just talk and get to know each other, no physical judgment would be possible, and those things are much easier to get past once you know someone by their character and personality. If you were feeling really bold, you could even get your friends to set you up on a "blind date" (har har). I ran the idea past my room mates and they brought up potential issues of trust, which is legitimate, so naturally you would want this to be a somewhat controlled environment. Any way, I had been thinking of that along side Postsingular where the orphidnet lets people see everything about each other. Black vs. White. Obviously it wouldn't be for everyone, but I would be willing to give it a try.
I guess that's it for the class-mandated section blog. It hasn't been easy for me, and I'm not real proud of most of my entries. I'll probably still post, but infrequently.
Monday, May 18, 2009
scribblings of little or no consequence.
Right. Animals. Let's talk about animals. Animals as in the animals in the books we've been reading. Maybe by getting to know our fury friends we can learn a bit more about their less-hairy counterparts, or maybe, no the other hand, I'm just a bumbling idiot. Let's find out. If we follow Tony's handy syllabus we would get to "The Ticket that Exploded" before encountering any significant animal-characters. Morel seems only to have bugs (not to say that bugs are not important, they just are not particularly important to TIOM and therefore not entirely important to understanding the other characters.) and if there are any significant animals involved in Alterity that I am about to leave out, please forgive me, I still have a difficult time picking out the important parts of the book, but I do not think animals were invloved. At any rate, TTTE invloves several odd creatures, we could call them animals, actually I feel like we could call every character in that book an animal of sorts, with each one being almost as important to the plot as the next. Since I'm already on the subject of TTTE, let me go into the virus somewhat, as it seems unaviodable when TTTE comes up. this raises a potentially interesting question: does the virus make the characters in TTTE animalistic or were they that way before hand? (before-hand itself is an interesting concept in TTTE, one that I'm not sure I could describe, what was life like before the virus hit? did they live in a world like ours? Maybe its just the fact the world Burroughs has created is so incredibly different from our that it is difficult to compare it with anything we are familiar with) Animals and viruses both have that icredible desire to live and carry on that we only are aware of becuase we share it with the rest of them. Only two things have ever been so damn succesfull in doing so that they kick everyone else to the curb. I am of course referring back to viruses, as well as humans. Put the two of them together and you end up with machines telling men that they are viruses as well. TTTE gives us a world where everything seemingly has some version or mutation of the same virus, which is has either made the desicion not to, or is incapable of, destroying all life outright. Life therefore blunders on, and some of humanities more violent, animalistic tendencies have seems to come forward.
Next there's ribofunk, which although is also under complete control of the slightly different virus, the urb, has a distinct view of "animals" within its pages. The splices, or cultivars as they are also called, are main characters throughout the story, or rather stories. Of course to simply call them animals is rather ignorant of several of the main parts of the storyline in which these creatures are fighting for equal rights against there human creators. The splices hint at an ongoing struggle that has been occuring on this planet for quite some time. Di Filippo seems to be suggesting that even once humans have reached a tenative equality with thier own species, that they will simply create, or already have created, something else to subjecate. The fact the Di Filippo uses creatures that contain parts of human DNA make his take even more interesting. the most intruging example of these characters is little worker. (I personally wanted to learn more about krazy kat, but oh well) Little worker developed her own agenda somewhere down the line and accomplishes what she wants to with a combination of human wit and animal ferocity. I also feel the evnts that take place in "after school special" to be relevant here. We have two children who get "spikes" what we would call body alterations perhaps. this involves antlers for the boy and a column of coral for the girl, coral being of course a living thing. Even when they are inside the digital body learnig its anatomy they take the form of disney characters, many of which are based of animals. In a seperate chapter we have a girl who wants to become and giant cockroach. I find this desire to be animal-like among the Ribofunk human population very interesting when juxtapositioned beside the ferocity of the splices who are of less then fifty percent human DNA, which apparently makes them more animal like then the humans wish to become.
Thats all for now, allthough thats only two of the five books I still want to take a look at. If you actaully bothered to read this, I suppose you could expect more later.
Next there's ribofunk, which although is also under complete control of the slightly different virus, the urb, has a distinct view of "animals" within its pages. The splices, or cultivars as they are also called, are main characters throughout the story, or rather stories. Of course to simply call them animals is rather ignorant of several of the main parts of the storyline in which these creatures are fighting for equal rights against there human creators. The splices hint at an ongoing struggle that has been occuring on this planet for quite some time. Di Filippo seems to be suggesting that even once humans have reached a tenative equality with thier own species, that they will simply create, or already have created, something else to subjecate. The fact the Di Filippo uses creatures that contain parts of human DNA make his take even more interesting. the most intruging example of these characters is little worker. (I personally wanted to learn more about krazy kat, but oh well) Little worker developed her own agenda somewhere down the line and accomplishes what she wants to with a combination of human wit and animal ferocity. I also feel the evnts that take place in "after school special" to be relevant here. We have two children who get "spikes" what we would call body alterations perhaps. this involves antlers for the boy and a column of coral for the girl, coral being of course a living thing. Even when they are inside the digital body learnig its anatomy they take the form of disney characters, many of which are based of animals. In a seperate chapter we have a girl who wants to become and giant cockroach. I find this desire to be animal-like among the Ribofunk human population very interesting when juxtapositioned beside the ferocity of the splices who are of less then fifty percent human DNA, which apparently makes them more animal like then the humans wish to become.
Thats all for now, allthough thats only two of the five books I still want to take a look at. If you actaully bothered to read this, I suppose you could expect more later.
Sunday, May 10, 2009
Don't bother.
I need to give some credit to Drew Miller for this one. We were walking back from English on day last week and we started talking about the sounds of science videos we had watched that day (the octopus and similarities between length and time). We both thought that the octopus was pretty damn cool, but Drew decided, and I agree, that it is tougher for us to understand octopus than similarities between length and time (if that's not the correct title, I apologize). we figured that this is because the human brain understands linear relationships and ideas better than naturally occurring things, that is, the body of an octopus is not very linear, nor is say, the inner workings of the human body. We both found this pretty interesting since this idea of something being linear, measurable, or otherwise solved is a human idea that came about after human evolved the large brains we have come to love so well. I figure this adaptation to the linear must have been trained into the human brain over hundreds of years. Personally I figure it probably started at about the same time agriculture did, but I could be way off. What is the basis of linear thought though? In some senses I feel that its just a means to see the patterns of things in the natural world, those patterns build on each other and you end up with physics and calculus. If that is correct, than the human body certainly has pattern to its functionality. (patterns being something that can only be recognized after being seen repeated a few times. Otherwise its just a speculation). While humans are undoubtedly the most pattern obsessed creatures it seems to me that many other forms of life can recognize patterns. I think that Pavlov's dog is a good example of this. Indeed it seems that intelligence is judged by one's ability to learn and decipher patterns. Chimps are taught to count, numbers being yet another pattern, than they are put in front of a computer screen with numbers, say one through ten, on it. They get to look at it for a few seconds then the numbers go away and the chimp has to touch the blank squares on the screen where the numbers used to be, in order. Chimpy wins, chimpy gets a banana or a marshmallow or whatever, and most of them do it better than most humans too, which I find funny. In reality, I feel that our measures of "intelligence" are pretty absurd. These days I feel like its just another way for people to judge each other. As far as I can tell, intelligence is determined by two things, your grades, early in life, and your paycheck later in life. Grades are pretty nasty, everything you do is rated. I feel like in a lot of cases its just a way for the education system to force their ideas on you, tell you what is "correct" as they see it. In the best cases grades are used in the hopes to get students to improve themselves, but I have found said cases to be rare indeed. Then there is standardized testing, which is just wonderful. For those of you who don't know, that's where they line you up like robots and compare you to everyone else. If you don't function the way you're "supposed" to, well they don't kill you, yet, they just sort of pretend you don't exist. They are plenty of people out there, though, that are more than willing to "fix" you for a few bucks. What good does being able to regurgitate all your knowledge onto some damn scantron? Then you get older and if you manage to get a high paying job, people will think you are smart. If you end up doing what you actually want to do, despite a lower paycheck, society will most likely consider you a failure on some level. "look at him, he only owns one car, he must have done poorly an his SATs, quick kids, study study study, in fact why not just have schools teach soloey how to take this test, that will surely lead to success and intelligence." Washington had this problem with the WASL, but I think we got rid of it, not that the same problems don't occur with the SAT. Most highschool students pay extra to take prep classes for the SAT and the ACT... should that really be nessecary? Not that I'm saying I know a better way to run it, I think I'm more for abolishing it completely. Can't we just accredit our various education institutions and let the diploma's speak for themselves? I'll accept the current grading system as the lesser of two evils here; just that teachers should be wise about how they grade things, and not base classes on a few silly tests. than we're just back to the whole standardization process. So somewhere down the line, I guess this turned into quite a rant, and got way off topic from class. oh well.
Monday, May 4, 2009
just write they said...
Write I shall. Well I'm pretty damned stressed right now. I have this spectacularly lame speech outline due Wednesday. The speech is on the benefits of supporting local art. I need four non-internet based sources and its god damned tough to find them. not too many people give a shit about art and also want to write about why its cool. I also don't think there are too many hard facts on why supporting other people's expression is good for both parties, but I don't think I can get away with changing my topic this late in the game. I want to do this one justice as well. Shit. So there are basically two things I do when I'm stressed: I swear more and I listen to lodger. I swear plenty when I'm relaxed but this stressing really brings the sailor out in me, so forgive me if this blog gets vulgar. Lodger is this cool Finnish indie band that I discovered one day during my travels of the inter-network. They are pretty pessimistic but I dig the sound.
I will now be taking suggestions from the studio audience.
There seems to be a lot of talk on plurk about how class was operated today. For me it was really no big deal. I actually liked the old timey feel it had to it. I am in no way trying to say that I don't like all the media that Tony uses but I'm used to classes similar to the one we had today. I felt like it was somewhat easier to follow what direction the conversation in the room was going. I don't want every class to be like that, but it was cool. People were also saying that we didn't discuss the books as much as we ought to have. I find this odd. I feel that we did in fact discuss the reading, or that what we discussed was derived from the reading. Also I've have always been under the impression that if you want to discuss something in 238, just say so; especially if it has to do with assigned books. but what the fuck do I know.
Thats all I have to say about that.
I went to the Shins concert last Saturday. It was a great show. pretty damn rainy. The opening act was called Delta Spirit. they were good, I had never heard of them before; the lead singer kind of has a bob dylan/willie nelson voice, but he screams it out sometimes. they had a cool sound. Some people complained about the rain but I thouroghly enjoyed it. Rain doesn't bother me that much, I guess that makes sense with my choice to come to school here. For some reason I expected the lead singer in the Shins to somehow look different than he did. I don't really know why. It does not matter anyway, just odd the way our imaginations give us funny preconceptions isn't it?
Thats all I have to say about that...
I think I just figure out what I should have spent this entire blog talking about: this suggestion that aestetics makes us animals.
"Levinas used to recount that in the camp where he was a prisoner, in the living form of Bobby, a dog, some humanity was bestowed upon him. Marching back to the camp at night after having endured the plight of phisical labor, Levinas was suddenly greeted. Bobby came running up to him, recognising him, while the nazi guard treated him like an abhorred dog."
I'm not quite making the connection between aestetics ans animals at the momment, but I think what Kac and Ronnel are trying to get is that aestetics, which are undeniably important to Life Extreme, can put us into social groups we have not anticipated, as well as alienate us from those we do not necessarily want to be alienated from. I realize that the nazis are an odd example of the latter but that Bobby seemed to recognize Levinas as a dog seems to back up my idea. I also realize that of course Levinas did not want to be treated in a way that would allow a dog to identify with him, I think the point is that he was able to find some humane treatment and comfort despite the extremely poor conditions he was living in. A very optomistic view indeed. Perhaps the animal factor comes in in the sense that we have the tendency to form "packs" based on similar aestetic tastes. Packs lead to a pack mentalitiy and are often risky to less established members of society.
I will now be taking suggestions from the studio audience.
There seems to be a lot of talk on plurk about how class was operated today. For me it was really no big deal. I actually liked the old timey feel it had to it. I am in no way trying to say that I don't like all the media that Tony uses but I'm used to classes similar to the one we had today. I felt like it was somewhat easier to follow what direction the conversation in the room was going. I don't want every class to be like that, but it was cool. People were also saying that we didn't discuss the books as much as we ought to have. I find this odd. I feel that we did in fact discuss the reading, or that what we discussed was derived from the reading. Also I've have always been under the impression that if you want to discuss something in 238, just say so; especially if it has to do with assigned books. but what the fuck do I know.
Thats all I have to say about that.
I went to the Shins concert last Saturday. It was a great show. pretty damn rainy. The opening act was called Delta Spirit. they were good, I had never heard of them before; the lead singer kind of has a bob dylan/willie nelson voice, but he screams it out sometimes. they had a cool sound. Some people complained about the rain but I thouroghly enjoyed it. Rain doesn't bother me that much, I guess that makes sense with my choice to come to school here. For some reason I expected the lead singer in the Shins to somehow look different than he did. I don't really know why. It does not matter anyway, just odd the way our imaginations give us funny preconceptions isn't it?
Thats all I have to say about that...
I think I just figure out what I should have spent this entire blog talking about: this suggestion that aestetics makes us animals.
"Levinas used to recount that in the camp where he was a prisoner, in the living form of Bobby, a dog, some humanity was bestowed upon him. Marching back to the camp at night after having endured the plight of phisical labor, Levinas was suddenly greeted. Bobby came running up to him, recognising him, while the nazi guard treated him like an abhorred dog."
I'm not quite making the connection between aestetics ans animals at the momment, but I think what Kac and Ronnel are trying to get is that aestetics, which are undeniably important to Life Extreme, can put us into social groups we have not anticipated, as well as alienate us from those we do not necessarily want to be alienated from. I realize that the nazis are an odd example of the latter but that Bobby seemed to recognize Levinas as a dog seems to back up my idea. I also realize that of course Levinas did not want to be treated in a way that would allow a dog to identify with him, I think the point is that he was able to find some humane treatment and comfort despite the extremely poor conditions he was living in. A very optomistic view indeed. Perhaps the animal factor comes in in the sense that we have the tendency to form "packs" based on similar aestetic tastes. Packs lead to a pack mentalitiy and are often risky to less established members of society.
Monday, April 27, 2009
knowing,
For the purpose of this blog I am going to work under the premises that knowing something is part of the human condition and therefore I am only going use the human condition to describe what knowing is. In other words, I am going with the assumption that we are not in some kind of matrix, even though I cannot prove we are not because I cannot immediately perceive it. I am going off the assumption that what we can perceive is what is real, and not the chance that what we can perceive is some kind of illusion.
So here goes nothing, my attempt at understanding some of what we have been talking about in class. One of the things that came up today was the idea of knowing. Tony went on ahead and filled us in on three primary types of knowing, leaving me, and hopefully not just me, in the dust wondering what knowing is. I'm not even sure how to tackle this one. What is knowing something? can we ever know something in its entirety? I figure it's maybe something like this: you can know a person, or to be more precise, select aspects of a person, not the entire person; I seriously wonder if you can even know everything about yourself, but I digress. You can also know facts such as what chemicals a desk is made up of, under the same category, you can also know somethings status, such as where someone is. You can know how to do something from experience although this is somewhat questionable since no two situations will be exactly alike, I still feel that there is something to be said about memory, but I guess it's really more of a system of estimating probabilities than actually knowing something, again, since no two situations will be alike.
That brings me to my next idea, which is the shit storm of the whole thing. We cannot know the future. nothing is certain people, or maybe everything is certain but to bad because we can't predict what will happen. I wonder about this human notion of choice all the time. Do other animals have choice or are they driven by instinct only? does choice even exist? if not, then what is the human idea of choice? If we had no notion of choice, assuming that it actually does not exist, what would our reality look like? I guess the idea of choice is probably integral to the human condition (what condition is our condition in?). Maybe the only difference between instinct and choice is the notion of choice. That of course would suggest that choice does not actually exist and is only an illusion, one either created by the human brain or created by the man to make us feel like we are in control, which in many cases, despite free will, we are not. In regards to the past: the past is subjective, no two events are ever exactly alike and no two people will perceive any event in the same way. I think its important to realize that what you "know" about the past is not equivalent to what you know at this very moment. the past only exists and peoples heads and in books and movies, which are extensions of people's imaginations. having a general knowledge of the past serves as a means to work out probabilities in the future, but keep in mind that they are not going to give you certainties. People who ignore history are more likely to repeat it is the way the saying ought to go. Not that I am trying to say that you should not study history, my advice is to just be critical of what you are taught because it is all always subjective. (I am going to politely avoid time travel in this blog. I honestly hope it never exists.)
Again I digress, with a somewhat adequate description of "knowing" on the table as well as reassuring that the future and the past cannot be completely known, we come to what you know right know, which is not all that much. all we "know" in the truest definition of the word is what we can immediately perceive. what does this mean? It means that everyone in the world that you cannot perceive with any sense at this point in time could be dead from swine flu. That this has happened is extremely unlikely, but just by admitting that it is unlikely we have to cede that it could happen. Since it could happen, and since we are not aware of the world outside of our perception we cannot dismiss that it has not happened. One of the beauties of our age is that technology allows us to increase the range of our perceptions, for instance after reading my example, and hopefully accepting it as a possibility, albeit a remote one, some one could simply turn on the T.V. or phone a friend and find out that not everyone is dead.
So here goes nothing, my attempt at understanding some of what we have been talking about in class. One of the things that came up today was the idea of knowing. Tony went on ahead and filled us in on three primary types of knowing, leaving me, and hopefully not just me, in the dust wondering what knowing is. I'm not even sure how to tackle this one. What is knowing something? can we ever know something in its entirety? I figure it's maybe something like this: you can know a person, or to be more precise, select aspects of a person, not the entire person; I seriously wonder if you can even know everything about yourself, but I digress. You can also know facts such as what chemicals a desk is made up of, under the same category, you can also know somethings status, such as where someone is. You can know how to do something from experience although this is somewhat questionable since no two situations will be exactly alike, I still feel that there is something to be said about memory, but I guess it's really more of a system of estimating probabilities than actually knowing something, again, since no two situations will be alike.
That brings me to my next idea, which is the shit storm of the whole thing. We cannot know the future. nothing is certain people, or maybe everything is certain but to bad because we can't predict what will happen. I wonder about this human notion of choice all the time. Do other animals have choice or are they driven by instinct only? does choice even exist? if not, then what is the human idea of choice? If we had no notion of choice, assuming that it actually does not exist, what would our reality look like? I guess the idea of choice is probably integral to the human condition (what condition is our condition in?). Maybe the only difference between instinct and choice is the notion of choice. That of course would suggest that choice does not actually exist and is only an illusion, one either created by the human brain or created by the man to make us feel like we are in control, which in many cases, despite free will, we are not. In regards to the past: the past is subjective, no two events are ever exactly alike and no two people will perceive any event in the same way. I think its important to realize that what you "know" about the past is not equivalent to what you know at this very moment. the past only exists and peoples heads and in books and movies, which are extensions of people's imaginations. having a general knowledge of the past serves as a means to work out probabilities in the future, but keep in mind that they are not going to give you certainties. People who ignore history are more likely to repeat it is the way the saying ought to go. Not that I am trying to say that you should not study history, my advice is to just be critical of what you are taught because it is all always subjective. (I am going to politely avoid time travel in this blog. I honestly hope it never exists.)
Again I digress, with a somewhat adequate description of "knowing" on the table as well as reassuring that the future and the past cannot be completely known, we come to what you know right know, which is not all that much. all we "know" in the truest definition of the word is what we can immediately perceive. what does this mean? It means that everyone in the world that you cannot perceive with any sense at this point in time could be dead from swine flu. That this has happened is extremely unlikely, but just by admitting that it is unlikely we have to cede that it could happen. Since it could happen, and since we are not aware of the world outside of our perception we cannot dismiss that it has not happened. One of the beauties of our age is that technology allows us to increase the range of our perceptions, for instance after reading my example, and hopefully accepting it as a possibility, albeit a remote one, some one could simply turn on the T.V. or phone a friend and find out that not everyone is dead.
Monday, April 6, 2009
In the begining...
For starters, here's a rough pataphor that I came up with:
"The nanotext class ambled down the sidewalk on its many legs in a somewhat uncoordinated manner. This manner was its nature; though it betrayed the true strength and potential movement speed of the creature. A passing English 101 class waved politely although insincerely. Further ahead a beautiful and self-centered calculus class crossed the street without a glance. The nanotext class only laughed to itself and then, using one long and tentacled arm, pulled a picture from a billboard and drank the ink off of it. No sooner had the creature finished its drink came a loud ding from somewhere in its guts; words formed on the creature’s gleaming skin and fell to ground completing a short sentence. The words were devoured without hesitation and the nanotext class continued its stroll, smiling and swaggering."
I think that this idea of a pataphor somehow pertains to "The Invention of Morel"; however, I openly admit that at this point in time I have yet to make that connection, I simply figure it exists because of the emphasis Tony has point on them in class.
At any rate, the reason I attempted at the above should be obvious. what with all this talk about our class being a super organism I figured that in a pataphysical world our class would actually be some kind of creature, albeit a somewhat odd creature. Then, just to spice things up a bit, I threw in some other class organisms and turned the thing into a whole damn descriptive paragraph. I may have gone to far. Anyway, I'd love to get it read and find out you (my peers) think of it. I thought of posting the whole thing on plurk but I think I'd feel like too much off an ass.
In other news (and now I'll actually blabber on about Morel now)
I've been having some difficulty with the narrator's idea that the projections from Morel's invention are alive. I mean, just because they take up physical space and and can be perceived by each human sense, does that make something alive? Then again it seems that an objects status in physical has mo meaning in TIOM as an editor (who the hell is that guy anyway) points out in a footnote on page 99 "He neglected to explain one thing, the most incredible of all: the coexistence, in one space, of an object and its whole image. This fact suggests the possibility that the whole world is made up exclusively of sensations." This idea goes against my understanding of physics, but hey what the hell, not that I'm trying to point out the impossibility of Morel's machine, just trying to define the narrator's (and therefore the author's?) idea of what conditions must be met to call something "life". So, leaving out somethings identity in physical space we have senses, what can be perceived, and, though this is somewhat of an assumption, we have the interactions between these beings. Personally I think that there's more to being alive, especially to being human than that, but even if there's not, its all just a damn recording. Even if these recordings can think and feel, they are only acting on the world they were recorded in, they have no means to interact with anything new. then again maybe that's what life is if you don't believe that free will exists. maybe this idea of "new" is just an illusion.
And now on to plurk.
Recently, I posted: "Williamnot feels that nanotexts is slowly ripping away from me everything which once held meaning." This gained me a few interesting responses, the first of which was: "Mantra feels you should fight the entropy of meaning by introducing new meaning into the once closed system of your reality." At first I was a little offended that someone thought of my reality as "closed" I'm not even sure what this means. Am (or was) I an ignorant or self centered person? I of course don't like to think so, but I suppose its a possibility. The more I thought about it though; the more I began to wonder if it was even possible for some one's reality to be closed. Isn't the meaning present in any one's life there, in some part, due to others? I believe it is, so how is it possible for a reality to be closed. On the other hand, if I accept that my reality is or was closed, what has nanotexts done to open it up? If a allow new meaning into my life through nanotexts, how will that meaning be of better quality than meaning I had previously? Is it assumed that old meaning in my life was obtained foolishly and without thought given to what I was making important in my own life? I don't like that idea to much (I have examined my lifestyle a few times in my age), and frankly, no one in nanotexts knows enough about me to make that call. Also, to be fair, I didn't quite accurately state my feelings in the original plurk; I feel that it is also worth mentioning that the meaning in my life is being ripped away because nanotexts is making me wonder if any meaning has meaning. And if that is the case, who gives a shit if my reality is open or closed?
"The nanotext class ambled down the sidewalk on its many legs in a somewhat uncoordinated manner. This manner was its nature; though it betrayed the true strength and potential movement speed of the creature. A passing English 101 class waved politely although insincerely. Further ahead a beautiful and self-centered calculus class crossed the street without a glance. The nanotext class only laughed to itself and then, using one long and tentacled arm, pulled a picture from a billboard and drank the ink off of it. No sooner had the creature finished its drink came a loud ding from somewhere in its guts; words formed on the creature’s gleaming skin and fell to ground completing a short sentence. The words were devoured without hesitation and the nanotext class continued its stroll, smiling and swaggering."
I think that this idea of a pataphor somehow pertains to "The Invention of Morel"; however, I openly admit that at this point in time I have yet to make that connection, I simply figure it exists because of the emphasis Tony has point on them in class.
At any rate, the reason I attempted at the above should be obvious. what with all this talk about our class being a super organism I figured that in a pataphysical world our class would actually be some kind of creature, albeit a somewhat odd creature. Then, just to spice things up a bit, I threw in some other class organisms and turned the thing into a whole damn descriptive paragraph. I may have gone to far. Anyway, I'd love to get it read and find out you (my peers) think of it. I thought of posting the whole thing on plurk but I think I'd feel like too much off an ass.
In other news (and now I'll actually blabber on about Morel now)
I've been having some difficulty with the narrator's idea that the projections from Morel's invention are alive. I mean, just because they take up physical space and and can be perceived by each human sense, does that make something alive? Then again it seems that an objects status in physical has mo meaning in TIOM as an editor (who the hell is that guy anyway) points out in a footnote on page 99 "He neglected to explain one thing, the most incredible of all: the coexistence, in one space, of an object and its whole image. This fact suggests the possibility that the whole world is made up exclusively of sensations." This idea goes against my understanding of physics, but hey what the hell, not that I'm trying to point out the impossibility of Morel's machine, just trying to define the narrator's (and therefore the author's?) idea of what conditions must be met to call something "life". So, leaving out somethings identity in physical space we have senses, what can be perceived, and, though this is somewhat of an assumption, we have the interactions between these beings. Personally I think that there's more to being alive, especially to being human than that, but even if there's not, its all just a damn recording. Even if these recordings can think and feel, they are only acting on the world they were recorded in, they have no means to interact with anything new. then again maybe that's what life is if you don't believe that free will exists. maybe this idea of "new" is just an illusion.
And now on to plurk.
Recently, I posted: "Williamnot feels that nanotexts is slowly ripping away from me everything which once held meaning." This gained me a few interesting responses, the first of which was: "Mantra feels you should fight the entropy of meaning by introducing new meaning into the once closed system of your reality." At first I was a little offended that someone thought of my reality as "closed" I'm not even sure what this means. Am (or was) I an ignorant or self centered person? I of course don't like to think so, but I suppose its a possibility. The more I thought about it though; the more I began to wonder if it was even possible for some one's reality to be closed. Isn't the meaning present in any one's life there, in some part, due to others? I believe it is, so how is it possible for a reality to be closed. On the other hand, if I accept that my reality is or was closed, what has nanotexts done to open it up? If a allow new meaning into my life through nanotexts, how will that meaning be of better quality than meaning I had previously? Is it assumed that old meaning in my life was obtained foolishly and without thought given to what I was making important in my own life? I don't like that idea to much (I have examined my lifestyle a few times in my age), and frankly, no one in nanotexts knows enough about me to make that call. Also, to be fair, I didn't quite accurately state my feelings in the original plurk; I feel that it is also worth mentioning that the meaning in my life is being ripped away because nanotexts is making me wonder if any meaning has meaning. And if that is the case, who gives a shit if my reality is open or closed?
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)