Oh Aalfred, you are not going to get much attention for a while. Final projects are coming due, and then it's back to the sticks for the summer... sans-highspeed-internet.
It was neat, though, to go off as a little party into the endeavor this evening. For me, it served to situate Aalfred as a part of this larger community. A real member of a particular universe. In some ways, it validated his existence.
Surprisingly, I actually kind of hope I can find myself back in WoW in the coming months. I suppose I have to be flexible, willing to admit that some of my early resistance needs to now be shed. I don't think I'll be quitting my day-job anytime soon... but at the same time, Aalfred just might stick around for a little longer than I thought. He just might.
Emblems, MyStory, and Conflicting Interpretations
| 0 comments |
There are a number of ways to read Ulmer's Mystory/Electracy. I will outline the 3 primary ways here:
1) Foucaultian/Institutional-Power
The Mystorical working through the PopCycle can be seen as an investigation of how we are constrained and influenced by the institutional power structures in which we exist. This reading is consistent with his overall grammatological approach that "cuts across the old divisions of knowledge, being concerned with all manner of inscription, with the question of [...] knowledge or more of knowing" (Applied Grammatology 10, italics added). This allows us to work past these institutions in order to establish new transversal communities. This can be productive in that it allows us the EmerAgency to "improve the world; or, if not to improve th world, then to understand in what way the human world is irreparable." (Electronic Monuments xxxiii).
I don't have much a problem with this reading. It allows for a recognition of institutional/discursive forces that insist on limited top-down approaches, thereby opening up the possibility for bottom-up approaches. The Mystorical examination of the PopCycle is simply a means of working through Foucaultian concepts. I suppose, though, that reading the MyStory only in this way would make it merely derivative of Foucaultian investigation. That's fine, I suppose.
2) Psychoanalytical
Like it or not, Ulmer is doing many many many psychoanalytic things in this work. It simply is the case. His extensive quoting of Freud, his emphasis on atmosphere/obtuse meaning, his employment of memory work, is more than enough to demonstrate the psychoanalytic foundations of the MyStory. He says in Heuretics that "the architectural premises could be this 'house of entertainment,' and the logic would come from psychoanalysis" (50, italics added). The Mystory them becomes a form of "psychic writing" (Heuretics 80). It turns our attention "from skepticism to yearning" and "nostalgia" (Internet Invention 268).
This has been the primary way we have interacted with the Mystory in this course. Such is evidenced by the questions like "I really see you in the Family Discourse because you are not there --- why did you not put pictures of yourself in your family section?" and "wow, the fact that this memory keeps coming up for you must mean that it really impacted you somehow, that it keeps reappearing -- why do you think that?" This way of reading Ulmer is the one I have the most problem with.
All of the traditional critiques of psychoanalysis (reductivism, transference, counter-transference, etc. ... not to mention the pedagogical problems, such as doing all this in a classroom with other students led by a non-therapist and then Published on the Internet!!! ....among other things) can be brought to bear on this very particularized version. It's not even the open ended laying on the green couch conversation with the therapist, but instead is a therapist-driven session. It masquerades as this "do-it-your-own-way" form of investigation, but the hyper-specificity of the Assignments betrays any notions of patient-drivenness. Ulmer's consistency with his very specific Assignments during our session with him a few weeks ago reaffirms the validity of this critique.
This approach is also difficult to reconcile with the political aspirations mentioned above in the Institutional section. The Mystory becomes very self-involved, even self-obsessed, self-indulgent, and self-centered. Ulmer's characterization of the widesite as being for self, not to be thought of as something you make for the public, is verification of such. Now, one might say that the Electronic Monuments' politicality and the Mystory's introvertedness are separate because they are separate endeavors. Sure. But that just means that the positive outcomes of Reading #1 go away when assessing only the Mystory. That does not score the Ulmerian any points.
3) Creative Writing/A New Genre
Ulmer is explicitly working to create, or at least publicize and academically justify (Teletheory 61), a new genre of writing - the MyStory. It is a genre that is built on the appratus of electracy, which works through the connective logic of conduction, inspired by electricity, and thus works through the ontology of electrical technology, though it is not medium-contingent. In this new scheme, the "mystory continues to include narrative knowledge, but prefers to work with forms such as the anecdote and joke" (Teletheory 86). Working in the "middle voice" (whatever that is), it does not seek to replace analytic writing, but rather seeks to open up new space for meaning making (Teletheory 66).
This creative approach is one I feel like I can embrace. This reading is diametrically opposed to a psychoanalytic function, as it is "making a creation, not a discovery" (Teletheory 85). Working through the logic of conduction, it works in a brainstorming fashion that allows for the electric movement from one node (unexpectedly) to another node, creating a fascinating and unpredictable new web of ideas. One might say that "Ulmer is not seeking truth. While psychoanalysis cannot find real Truth, it is not a problem for Ulmer because he's not looking for truth anyway." Such, however, is denied by the overt specificity of Ulmer's Assignments, his insistence on memory, etc. These two views, are ultimately mutually exclusive. Using your family history of entertainment influences as creative inspiration is fine. Searching for "something about myself" in the Mystory is an incompatible other goal.
EMBLEM
This brings me then to the Emblem. How I go about creating/finding/exploring my Emblem is entirely dictated by which of the above readings I follow. In truth, ULMER IS DOING ALL OF THEM. This blog post is not to say that one reading is "right" and the other is "wrong." In fact, in the grand philosophy out of which Ulmer is working, we cannot even make those statements. One of my points, however, is that these tenants in Ulmer's work are Ultimately INCONSISTENT and MUTUALLY EXCLUSIVE on many levels. Now, Ulmer would probably say "Great! Inconsistency! That's where Invention comes from!" That may sound great, but as a philosophical system, it doesn't work. If I deny the claim that "Inconsistencies are Fine," (which in many ways I do... not always, but for the expression of a philosophical/pedagogical/psychological system... yes, I deny it), then we get back to my overarching critique.
For me, then, I will take Ulmer for what he says (in ONE place, not all of them) about the Emblem. He says "You should always ask: What is that for me?" (Internet Invention 246). As such, my emblem will not be an instance of institutional resistence, and CERTAINLY NOT of self-revalation and discovery of self. instead, it will be an act of Creation. I will be looking for what "emerges" across the discourses in a brainstorming, inventive, electrate way. I will not be utilizing a deductive, literal process of "here's my problem, I need to generate solutions," but rather I will let the electricity cross between the connective notes and I will create something out of it. One might say that I am no longer writing MY story... that I am not following the psychoanalytic tenants that are espoused in Ulmer's work... but hey, this is MYstory. Not theirs.
1) Foucaultian/Institutional-Power
The Mystorical working through the PopCycle can be seen as an investigation of how we are constrained and influenced by the institutional power structures in which we exist. This reading is consistent with his overall grammatological approach that "cuts across the old divisions of knowledge, being concerned with all manner of inscription, with the question of [...] knowledge or more of knowing" (Applied Grammatology 10, italics added). This allows us to work past these institutions in order to establish new transversal communities. This can be productive in that it allows us the EmerAgency to "improve the world; or, if not to improve th world, then to understand in what way the human world is irreparable." (Electronic Monuments xxxiii).
I don't have much a problem with this reading. It allows for a recognition of institutional/discursive forces that insist on limited top-down approaches, thereby opening up the possibility for bottom-up approaches. The Mystorical examination of the PopCycle is simply a means of working through Foucaultian concepts. I suppose, though, that reading the MyStory only in this way would make it merely derivative of Foucaultian investigation. That's fine, I suppose.
2) Psychoanalytical
Like it or not, Ulmer is doing many many many psychoanalytic things in this work. It simply is the case. His extensive quoting of Freud, his emphasis on atmosphere/obtuse meaning, his employment of memory work, is more than enough to demonstrate the psychoanalytic foundations of the MyStory. He says in Heuretics that "the architectural premises could be this 'house of entertainment,' and the logic would come from psychoanalysis" (50, italics added). The Mystory them becomes a form of "psychic writing" (Heuretics 80). It turns our attention "from skepticism to yearning" and "nostalgia" (Internet Invention 268).
This has been the primary way we have interacted with the Mystory in this course. Such is evidenced by the questions like "I really see you in the Family Discourse because you are not there --- why did you not put pictures of yourself in your family section?" and "wow, the fact that this memory keeps coming up for you must mean that it really impacted you somehow, that it keeps reappearing -- why do you think that?" This way of reading Ulmer is the one I have the most problem with.
All of the traditional critiques of psychoanalysis (reductivism, transference, counter-transference, etc. ... not to mention the pedagogical problems, such as doing all this in a classroom with other students led by a non-therapist and then Published on the Internet!!! ....among other things) can be brought to bear on this very particularized version. It's not even the open ended laying on the green couch conversation with the therapist, but instead is a therapist-driven session. It masquerades as this "do-it-your-own-way" form of investigation, but the hyper-specificity of the Assignments betrays any notions of patient-drivenness. Ulmer's consistency with his very specific Assignments during our session with him a few weeks ago reaffirms the validity of this critique.
This approach is also difficult to reconcile with the political aspirations mentioned above in the Institutional section. The Mystory becomes very self-involved, even self-obsessed, self-indulgent, and self-centered. Ulmer's characterization of the widesite as being for self, not to be thought of as something you make for the public, is verification of such. Now, one might say that the Electronic Monuments' politicality and the Mystory's introvertedness are separate because they are separate endeavors. Sure. But that just means that the positive outcomes of Reading #1 go away when assessing only the Mystory. That does not score the Ulmerian any points.
3) Creative Writing/A New Genre
Ulmer is explicitly working to create, or at least publicize and academically justify (Teletheory 61), a new genre of writing - the MyStory. It is a genre that is built on the appratus of electracy, which works through the connective logic of conduction, inspired by electricity, and thus works through the ontology of electrical technology, though it is not medium-contingent. In this new scheme, the "mystory continues to include narrative knowledge, but prefers to work with forms such as the anecdote and joke" (Teletheory 86). Working in the "middle voice" (whatever that is), it does not seek to replace analytic writing, but rather seeks to open up new space for meaning making (Teletheory 66).
This creative approach is one I feel like I can embrace. This reading is diametrically opposed to a psychoanalytic function, as it is "making a creation, not a discovery" (Teletheory 85). Working through the logic of conduction, it works in a brainstorming fashion that allows for the electric movement from one node (unexpectedly) to another node, creating a fascinating and unpredictable new web of ideas. One might say that "Ulmer is not seeking truth. While psychoanalysis cannot find real Truth, it is not a problem for Ulmer because he's not looking for truth anyway." Such, however, is denied by the overt specificity of Ulmer's Assignments, his insistence on memory, etc. These two views, are ultimately mutually exclusive. Using your family history of entertainment influences as creative inspiration is fine. Searching for "something about myself" in the Mystory is an incompatible other goal.
EMBLEM
This brings me then to the Emblem. How I go about creating/finding/exploring my Emblem is entirely dictated by which of the above readings I follow. In truth, ULMER IS DOING ALL OF THEM. This blog post is not to say that one reading is "right" and the other is "wrong." In fact, in the grand philosophy out of which Ulmer is working, we cannot even make those statements. One of my points, however, is that these tenants in Ulmer's work are Ultimately INCONSISTENT and MUTUALLY EXCLUSIVE on many levels. Now, Ulmer would probably say "Great! Inconsistency! That's where Invention comes from!" That may sound great, but as a philosophical system, it doesn't work. If I deny the claim that "Inconsistencies are Fine," (which in many ways I do... not always, but for the expression of a philosophical/pedagogical/psychological system... yes, I deny it), then we get back to my overarching critique.
For me, then, I will take Ulmer for what he says (in ONE place, not all of them) about the Emblem. He says "You should always ask: What is that for me?" (Internet Invention 246). As such, my emblem will not be an instance of institutional resistence, and CERTAINLY NOT of self-revalation and discovery of self. instead, it will be an act of Creation. I will be looking for what "emerges" across the discourses in a brainstorming, inventive, electrate way. I will not be utilizing a deductive, literal process of "here's my problem, I need to generate solutions," but rather I will let the electricity cross between the connective notes and I will create something out of it. One might say that I am no longer writing MY story... that I am not following the psychoanalytic tenants that are espoused in Ulmer's work... but hey, this is MYstory. Not theirs.
Aalfred's Story
| 0 comments |
I have trouble with anthropomorphizing/personifying things. Sometimes when I am in the store and I pick up a box of staples, if I originally looked at a different box, I feel a little bad for it that I made it think I was going to take it but didn't. AND THEN I catch myself thinking like a Loon and I try my best to snap myself out of it before they come with a lovely well-buckled jacket for me.
Thinking about my WoW character, Aalfred, then, is a tricky one. Were I playing the game on my own, I would not have chosen the Horde. While there is no official/definitive "good guys" or "bad guys" in the World (it's all relative), the Horde is still easily seen as the bad guys, if for no other reason than their appearance and species (undead... trolls... those typically aren't the good guys). So that made identification tough.
I chose the troll because it was closest to "happy" out of all of the characters. I had hoped I might be able to make him look a little dopey, as that is a character I could probably identify with. He would be a troll... not the most intelligent of trolls... but he would be a humorous chap that meant well. I could live with that. BUT he didn't end up looking all that dopey. So now I just had a real, and threatening (on many levels) troll on my hands. Oh boy.
And thus he was given the name Aalfred. Leaving WoW is hardest for me because of the name. Naming is important, and I really like this name, even with the double-a. It has both a ring of the proper English, but with the spelling it has a little bit of Gaelic mystique/history to it. In terms of an Ulmerian writing-of-the-paradigm, I should also note that the shortened version of his name in Chat often comes across as Aalf, or more commonly Alf... which I thoroughly enjoy because the 80's television show ALF was good-times (there's also an Alf Insurance company near where I live back in Michigan, and they have an Elf for a logo... and I always wonder why they made that choice... it doesn't work for me). I am not entirely sure what all the name means, but it strikes me as a meaningful name.
Aalfred is a troll rogue. I don't really know what that means. I was told that I would be able to do close-up damage with him and that it would be useful. That isn't the type of choice I would typically make. Diving into the fray is not usually my method-of-choice. But for this it was about functionality. I wanted to get into the game and get going, so I took the advice of experienced players. I really have no idea what the difference would be playing with a different type of character. Perhaps I should try it. Maybe I would connect with the universe/mythology more.
In fact, I do not connect with the WoW mythology/universe all that much, save for with Aalfred directly. This makes it kind of unlikely for me that I will play much (perhaps At All) after my stay here in 813 has ended. Maybe it is because Aalfred is a little alone right now. Recently he has joined the Venture Guild, and has received some important and appreciated help from others, but even in my 20-some hours of playing so far, I have not developed routine relationships with other players/characters. That is largely because I am a new player, so I am not quite to their level/location yet.
And that's how I prefer it to be. Other than the functional/practical aspect of being "assigned" leveling requirements, learning how to master program tends to be a largely self-taught activity for me. Truth be told, though, I am not sure that furthering connections with others will work for me/Aalfred, because I simply do not find myself getting engrossed by the WoW world, so that real immersion is difficult. Maybe it's a chicken-egg thing. I don't know.
Aalfred is who he is, though. The fact that I am using a personal pronoun for him is probably more telling than I want to admit. He is not me, though. That is for sure. It is not an extension of myself, but rather a character that I have been forced to reconcile with. The puppeteers of the american golden age would often say that you can't tell the puppet what to do, but rather that you have to let the puppet tell you what it wants to do. I am experiencing that first hand with this virtual object-subject me-Aalfred/Aalfred-me relationship.
Boy this post has gotten longer than I expected it to. It's the box of staples all over again.
I chose the troll because it was closest to "happy" out of all of the characters. I had hoped I might be able to make him look a little dopey, as that is a character I could probably identify with. He would be a troll... not the most intelligent of trolls... but he would be a humorous chap that meant well. I could live with that. BUT he didn't end up looking all that dopey. So now I just had a real, and threatening (on many levels) troll on my hands. Oh boy.
And thus he was given the name Aalfred. Leaving WoW is hardest for me because of the name. Naming is important, and I really like this name, even with the double-a. It has both a ring of the proper English, but with the spelling it has a little bit of Gaelic mystique/history to it. In terms of an Ulmerian writing-of-the-paradigm, I should also note that the shortened version of his name in Chat often comes across as Aalf, or more commonly Alf... which I thoroughly enjoy because the 80's television show ALF was good-times (there's also an Alf Insurance company near where I live back in Michigan, and they have an Elf for a logo... and I always wonder why they made that choice... it doesn't work for me). I am not entirely sure what all the name means, but it strikes me as a meaningful name.
Aalfred is a troll rogue. I don't really know what that means. I was told that I would be able to do close-up damage with him and that it would be useful. That isn't the type of choice I would typically make. Diving into the fray is not usually my method-of-choice. But for this it was about functionality. I wanted to get into the game and get going, so I took the advice of experienced players. I really have no idea what the difference would be playing with a different type of character. Perhaps I should try it. Maybe I would connect with the universe/mythology more.
In fact, I do not connect with the WoW mythology/universe all that much, save for with Aalfred directly. This makes it kind of unlikely for me that I will play much (perhaps At All) after my stay here in 813 has ended. Maybe it is because Aalfred is a little alone right now. Recently he has joined the Venture Guild, and has received some important and appreciated help from others, but even in my 20-some hours of playing so far, I have not developed routine relationships with other players/characters. That is largely because I am a new player, so I am not quite to their level/location yet.
And that's how I prefer it to be. Other than the functional/practical aspect of being "assigned" leveling requirements, learning how to master program tends to be a largely self-taught activity for me. Truth be told, though, I am not sure that furthering connections with others will work for me/Aalfred, because I simply do not find myself getting engrossed by the WoW world, so that real immersion is difficult. Maybe it's a chicken-egg thing. I don't know.
Aalfred is who he is, though. The fact that I am using a personal pronoun for him is probably more telling than I want to admit. He is not me, though. That is for sure. It is not an extension of myself, but rather a character that I have been forced to reconcile with. The puppeteers of the american golden age would often say that you can't tell the puppet what to do, but rather that you have to let the puppet tell you what it wants to do. I am experiencing that first hand with this virtual object-subject me-Aalfred/Aalfred-me relationship.
Boy this post has gotten longer than I expected it to. It's the box of staples all over again.
Potential Questions
| 1 comments |
We are getting a unique and generous opportunity to speak with Greg Ulmer, the author of Internet Invention - the text that has served as the backbone for this course. Here are a few potential questions that I might ask if given the chance...
- Why is the MyStory uniquely necessary for successful/effective development of electracy? Or is it one of many exercises that students could use to get their hands dirty with the internet? (And if that's the case, why was it chosen as the foundation for Internet Invention?)
- In the MyStory/PopCycle work, you are venturing into lots of psychoanalytic territory, though your work is not an explicit defense of psychoanalytic practice.theory. Do you think there are risks to that approach from personal or pedagogical perspectives? If a person resisted the psychoanalytic investigation, could they still effectively contribute to the development of electracy?
- Do think there may be international casualties in the advancement of electracy - widening the gap between the "haves" and "have-nots?"
- What do you make of the iPad? Are technologies like this advancing our electrate world, or are they still too beholden to traditional media?
- Are there technologies (hardware or software) that would be on your conceptual dreamlist? Something specific you would love to see developed if you had the resources?
- Why is the MyStory uniquely necessary for successful/effective development of electracy? Or is it one of many exercises that students could use to get their hands dirty with the internet? (And if that's the case, why was it chosen as the foundation for Internet Invention?)
- In the MyStory/PopCycle work, you are venturing into lots of psychoanalytic territory, though your work is not an explicit defense of psychoanalytic practice.theory. Do you think there are risks to that approach from personal or pedagogical perspectives? If a person resisted the psychoanalytic investigation, could they still effectively contribute to the development of electracy?
- Do think there may be international casualties in the advancement of electracy - widening the gap between the "haves" and "have-nots?"
- What do you make of the iPad? Are technologies like this advancing our electrate world, or are they still too beholden to traditional media?
- Are there technologies (hardware or software) that would be on your conceptual dreamlist? Something specific you would love to see developed if you had the resources?
Pandoran Strawberries
| 0 comments |
Perhaps I will begin with a question that is rather timely given the stage we are at in this course (i.e., at the point where we begin "investigating" (?) WoW) - do our contemporary forms of existing in Virtual/Digital Space Accelerate the process of the destruction of the real that Jean Baudrillard (JB) cries against?
Or is this elimination of the Real something that is purely past tense? Is it a fate already sealed? Or is it one that is more nuanced, existing in various ways, at various times, on a sort of continuum? I mean, I understand the line of thought JB is laying out (well, at least I think... I tend to get self-conscious about my level of understanding the moment I begin to think I am understanding...), but I wonder - what is really the case with this whole notion of the real?
I don't mean to seem pedestrian with my counter-example, but I ate some strawberries this morning. Now JB might argue that I was duped into purchasing the strawberries because of cultural forces that convinced me of a false-need for them, based not on their value, but rather their monetary worth. In that, he is partially correct. The quarts were 3/$5, which isn't too bad, so I got them. Had they been more expensive, their monetary "worth" would have overridden any notion of my "need" for them... a value that is generated by something other than something that is real. BUT, I DO need to eat healthy foods. Regardless of what the culture industry tells me (which tends to be the opposite), my own personal experience tells me I am happier/feel better when I am eating healthy.
And I ate the strawberries. I really did. I experienced it, I tasted them, it was real. But then again, What experience was real? My experience of eating strawberries? Of eating something healthy? These strawberries were almost certainly Genetically Modified - a super-simulation of some real strawberry that we no longer have. And what is "healthy" is certainly not a real term, but rather one that has been imposed by the authoritative powers that be. The strawberry becomes a simulation of this abstract form of the healthy food. Surely it is not "really" healthy - if I eat too many I probably won't feel all that great. Ugh.. they weren't even all that good of strawberries.... and now this isn't a very good counterargument... ughhh...
So is there a way to combat this? Or are all of our efforts doomed to fail? Films like The Matrix and Avatar can easily be seen as products of our psychological desire to shed the simulacra of this world - to unplug... to return to the Real. Or, as JB contends, are these, like the strawberries, wrapped up in a clever web of simulacra and simulation? Are they like the "Savages who are indebted to ethnology for still being Savages" (8)? Is it true that "Nothing changes when society breaks the mirror of madness" (9)??
If we allow ourselves to look back, though, are we able to see any real glimpses of this Real that has been lost? JB does hold to an authentic Real that used to exist. We know this by his use of the word "real," repetitive use of phrases like "no longer," and more explicit statements like "Everywhere we live in a universe strangely similar to the original" (11). Soooo.... so there is a Real that exists, or existed at one point in history. There was a Real. Is it possible, logically, or practically, to return to this real? To this authentic state of existence?
Do the Strawberries, Neos, and Na'avi offer us an example of what might be Real, or is JB really right in saying that they are endlessly bound up in the simulacral web? Are they only simulation because of our contact with them? When we put them on the screens in 3-D as a confined and controlled view of the primitive world? What about Pandora before the humans found it? What about the strawberry before it was picked?
I suppose I will return my to my attempt at a counterargument with an even more pedestrian approach, but one that gets at my line of questioning:
"If a strawberry grows in a Pandoran forest and nobody knows it exists, does it have to become hyperreal?"
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
