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?