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?"
The Body Electrate
| 0 comments |
Ulmer’s work is certainly interesting. I’ll give him that. In truth, as I’ve noted before, I rather resistant to some of the concepts as they are articulated in Internet Invention – to what I see as an ironically reductive psychoanalytic collage of the auto-biographical (non)self. Now, it may likely be the case that I disagree more with Internet-Invention-Ulmer than I do say Object-of-PostCriticism-Ulmer or Electronic-Monuments Ulmer or even Ulmer-Ulmer. I had some qualms about ReasoNeon, it’s true… but for this post, I am going to choose to focus on one of the elements in this portion of reading (Entertainment Discourse) that I have less up-and-down issues with. I have expended a decent amount of energy disagreeing, so I want to be sure to keep an open mind that allows me to see the material that I do agree with as well.
A thread that I find quite interesting in this section is the reference to the Body – to the corporeal self. This is something that is obviously very important in our individual/collective lives, and is certainly important in the Entertainment industry (in myriad ways)… and is something that should be important in electracy.
Ulmer writes that “the documentation procedure for each installment of the mystory should develop as many sensory signifiers as possible that are relevant to the memory” (129). This is something that storytellers have latched onto since the early oral traditions, and it is something that our entertainment industry is still exploring. While Smell-O-Vision may not be a reality any time soon, the 3-D Technology employed is bringing the body closer to the story than ever before, confounding our senses, and giving new meaning to the theater “experience” (even the HOME Theater Experience(Here’s an ARTICLE that I find interesting regarding the “real” and “not-so-real” 3-D production techniques, and here’s ONE on the 3-D Home Theater coming to a Living Room near you).
The Body has been an important tool in the modern Entertainment industry since its filmic origins a century ago:
And Bodies have been used in intriguing ways to convey movement in multi-layered ways. Take, for instance, the unique vocal and kinetic delivery given (by Frank Oz) to this piece of Entertainment legend:
And here is the trailer for a film I just came across and purchased --- it is my Entertainment Discourse plan for this coming weekend:
So how might/should/is this influence(ing) electracy? Ulmer gives us pretty good cues, for instance, referencing Richard Bolt of MIT who “demonstrated his point [about dealing with computers conversationally] by means of a computer program that responded to VOICE COMMAND, GESTURE, and GAZE” (139) – the components of classical rhetoric’s Bodily DELIVERY canon.
A simple, but important, element in electracy-generation is the need to keep an openmind. We have been given glimpses of what the electrate future might look like, and we should continually allow ourselves to imagine:
Now, I am not fully on board with all that Ulmer is saying in this pages about the bodily self (… shocking, I know). The mystorical value in gestural imitation, material fetishizings, and the detachedness claim that “when you go online, even if your body is in Kansas, your spirit is not in Kansas anymore” (178) are all troubling to me. But alas, I’d prefer to end on a high note:
A thread that I find quite interesting in this section is the reference to the Body – to the corporeal self. This is something that is obviously very important in our individual/collective lives, and is certainly important in the Entertainment industry (in myriad ways)… and is something that should be important in electracy.
Ulmer writes that “the documentation procedure for each installment of the mystory should develop as many sensory signifiers as possible that are relevant to the memory” (129). This is something that storytellers have latched onto since the early oral traditions, and it is something that our entertainment industry is still exploring. While Smell-O-Vision may not be a reality any time soon, the 3-D Technology employed is bringing the body closer to the story than ever before, confounding our senses, and giving new meaning to the theater “experience” (even the HOME Theater Experience(Here’s an ARTICLE that I find interesting regarding the “real” and “not-so-real” 3-D production techniques, and here’s ONE on the 3-D Home Theater coming to a Living Room near you).
The Body has been an important tool in the modern Entertainment industry since its filmic origins a century ago:
“Note how the actors in the scene […] performed their role. How […] they use their bodies to convey meaning” (130).
And Bodies have been used in intriguing ways to convey movement in multi-layered ways. Take, for instance, the unique vocal and kinetic delivery given (by Frank Oz) to this piece of Entertainment legend:
“The wise one: a mentor gives guidance and support to the subject” (126).
So how might/should/is this influence(ing) electracy? Ulmer gives us pretty good cues, for instance, referencing Richard Bolt of MIT who “demonstrated his point [about dealing with computers conversationally] by means of a computer program that responded to VOICE COMMAND, GESTURE, and GAZE” (139) – the components of classical rhetoric’s Bodily DELIVERY canon.
A simple, but important, element in electracy-generation is the need to keep an openmind. We have been given glimpses of what the electrate future might look like, and we should continually allow ourselves to imagine:
Now, I am not fully on board with all that Ulmer is saying in this pages about the bodily self (… shocking, I know). The mystorical value in gestural imitation, material fetishizings, and the detachedness claim that “when you go online, even if your body is in Kansas, your spirit is not in Kansas anymore” (178) are all troubling to me. But alas, I’d prefer to end on a high note:
We'll be okay... right?
| 0 comments |
It won't fully happen. We will not reach a total general accident similar to The Flood via technology, "the waning importance of the time zones soon reproducing the disappearance of land above water level" (125) and all. It won't happen for a number of reasons. One of them is the good ole dollar sign.
There are still too many impoverished people in this world to think that we will fully bathe the earth in this form of time-light that will destroy the physical, the local. There are folks struggling to pay their mortgages... struggling to pay for their DIAL-UP INTERNET. We are not quite to Virilio's Doomsday.
Then again, I suppose even Noah survived with his family... as did some animals (some in 2s, some in 7s...). The Flood forced a reBoot, but it did so amidst much pain. Perhaps Virilio is warning us to try NOT take the hard route.
Though I really question the degree of the Virtual/Digital's reach. Virilio writes that "just as the astronaut broke free of the reality of his native world in landing on the moon, the cybernaut momentarily leaves the reality of mundane space-time and inserts himself into the cybernetic strait-jacket of the virtual-reality environment control programme" (131). But how many of us are astronauts??? Not many. Virilio might say "That's the point - because you're not an astronaut but everyone has become a cybernaut - what an exponential increase in risk!" But are we really all cybernauts? One generation from now, will we be? Or will the pendulum swing the other direction for some unforeseen reason? Might Ulmer AND Virilio BOTH be wrong? Could there be an upswing in the desire for the natural/organic/physical?
OR maybe that's not possible. Virilio seems to connect appreciation for the physical with a reliance on the local. If there's no need for the local, the desire to maintain the physical (natural environment) goes away. Hmmm... Bummer... maybe there goes my hope for that return swing in the pendulum...
THIS IS ALL TO SAY THAT THIS IS REALLY DIFFICULT TO "PREDICT." As such, perhaps lessons from Virlio and Ulmer are both necesarry in concert with one another. A healthy skepticism and challenging of teletech, always keeping our hands on the plugs, while simultaneously working feverishly and profoundly creatively with the other hand to invent new and wondrous things out of the electrate world of possibilities before us.
Then again... maybe we don't have enough hands.
There are still too many impoverished people in this world to think that we will fully bathe the earth in this form of time-light that will destroy the physical, the local. There are folks struggling to pay their mortgages... struggling to pay for their DIAL-UP INTERNET. We are not quite to Virilio's Doomsday.
Then again, I suppose even Noah survived with his family... as did some animals (some in 2s, some in 7s...). The Flood forced a reBoot, but it did so amidst much pain. Perhaps Virilio is warning us to try NOT take the hard route.
Though I really question the degree of the Virtual/Digital's reach. Virilio writes that "just as the astronaut broke free of the reality of his native world in landing on the moon, the cybernaut momentarily leaves the reality of mundane space-time and inserts himself into the cybernetic strait-jacket of the virtual-reality environment control programme" (131). But how many of us are astronauts??? Not many. Virilio might say "That's the point - because you're not an astronaut but everyone has become a cybernaut - what an exponential increase in risk!" But are we really all cybernauts? One generation from now, will we be? Or will the pendulum swing the other direction for some unforeseen reason? Might Ulmer AND Virilio BOTH be wrong? Could there be an upswing in the desire for the natural/organic/physical?
OR maybe that's not possible. Virilio seems to connect appreciation for the physical with a reliance on the local. If there's no need for the local, the desire to maintain the physical (natural environment) goes away. Hmmm... Bummer... maybe there goes my hope for that return swing in the pendulum...
THIS IS ALL TO SAY THAT THIS IS REALLY DIFFICULT TO "PREDICT." As such, perhaps lessons from Virlio and Ulmer are both necesarry in concert with one another. A healthy skepticism and challenging of teletech, always keeping our hands on the plugs, while simultaneously working feverishly and profoundly creatively with the other hand to invent new and wondrous things out of the electrate world of possibilities before us.
Then again... maybe we don't have enough hands.
"hegemonic influence of technological culture"
| 0 comments |
Boy oh boy... the more I read Virlio ("Open Sky"), the more I find him persuasive. Sure, he's a bit "out there" in terms of the way he utilizes light-speed, etc., but the core ideas he proposes seem to have solid nuggets of truth in them.
In what ways does the "hegemonic influence of technological culture" (32) actually confine our way of thinking? Have we been programmed to only operate pseudo-satisfiedly through instantaneous "real-time" prosthetic tech? In what ways is our creativity being channeled only through those avenues?
This is a very important question for our culture at large, but also for the RCID program in particular. I have heard a couple different faculty members raise the question recently, asking whether or not RCID prompts us to be truly creative, or whether or not it is reinscribing certain institutional constraints of "flexibility" within the system.
In a 2007 TED Talk, Sir Ken Robinson raised this very issue, asking whether or not schools actually kill creativity. He demonstrated the importance of this question, saying, "Children starting school this year will be retiring in 2065. Nobody has a clue, despite all the expertise that's been on parade for the past four days, what the world will look like in five years' time, and yet we're meant to be educating them for it." (YouTube video HERE)
In what ways are we as a culture, we here in RCID, succumbing to the dromological culture of hegemonic technology? Virilio forces us to ask some Serious Questions.
Let's think of the possible negative ramifications beyond a controlling of creativity (an oxymoron?) --- for instance, pollution. Virilio writes, "At the end of the century, there will not be much left of the expanse of a planet that is not only polluted but also shrunk" (21). This shrinking occurs through our light-speed real-time telepresence that transports us anywhere in less than an instant. In that world, we are plugged in to the natural resources stripped from the earth, but are physically connected to manufactured prosthetics, not the earth itself. Why care about the pollution of the world if we're not actually experiencing the physical world?
Some would say that the Virtual spaces are just as "Real" as the Physical ones. While that may have SOME truth on a social level (though one should remember that while it may be "real," it is not the SAME as the physical social world), it does not mean that is has the same ramifications. Constructing a beautiful world in SL does not require maintenance of the beauty of the physical world. At least not in the short run ---- and that's all one cares about in this light-speed dromological world. There is no future. Only the instantaneous now. Future requires waiting. Who would want to wait?
And what of the relationships? What will society look like 30 years from now, having experienced so much telepresence? What will happen to our notions of service (18)? What will happen to our physical interpersonal relationships? Virilio boldly states, "getting closer to the 'distant' takes you away proportionally from the 'near' (and dear) - the friend, the relative, the neighbour - thus making strangers, if not actual enemies, of all who are close at hand" (20).
.... And before I leave this post....... what of our telepresence via military drones?
There's so much Virilio has gotten me thinking about. Perhaps I should take some time to mull it over.
In what ways does the "hegemonic influence of technological culture" (32) actually confine our way of thinking? Have we been programmed to only operate pseudo-satisfiedly through instantaneous "real-time" prosthetic tech? In what ways is our creativity being channeled only through those avenues?
This is a very important question for our culture at large, but also for the RCID program in particular. I have heard a couple different faculty members raise the question recently, asking whether or not RCID prompts us to be truly creative, or whether or not it is reinscribing certain institutional constraints of "flexibility" within the system.
In a 2007 TED Talk, Sir Ken Robinson raised this very issue, asking whether or not schools actually kill creativity. He demonstrated the importance of this question, saying, "Children starting school this year will be retiring in 2065. Nobody has a clue, despite all the expertise that's been on parade for the past four days, what the world will look like in five years' time, and yet we're meant to be educating them for it." (YouTube video HERE)
In what ways are we as a culture, we here in RCID, succumbing to the dromological culture of hegemonic technology? Virilio forces us to ask some Serious Questions.
Let's think of the possible negative ramifications beyond a controlling of creativity (an oxymoron?) --- for instance, pollution. Virilio writes, "At the end of the century, there will not be much left of the expanse of a planet that is not only polluted but also shrunk" (21). This shrinking occurs through our light-speed real-time telepresence that transports us anywhere in less than an instant. In that world, we are plugged in to the natural resources stripped from the earth, but are physically connected to manufactured prosthetics, not the earth itself. Why care about the pollution of the world if we're not actually experiencing the physical world?
Some would say that the Virtual spaces are just as "Real" as the Physical ones. While that may have SOME truth on a social level (though one should remember that while it may be "real," it is not the SAME as the physical social world), it does not mean that is has the same ramifications. Constructing a beautiful world in SL does not require maintenance of the beauty of the physical world. At least not in the short run ---- and that's all one cares about in this light-speed dromological world. There is no future. Only the instantaneous now. Future requires waiting. Who would want to wait?
And what of the relationships? What will society look like 30 years from now, having experienced so much telepresence? What will happen to our notions of service (18)? What will happen to our physical interpersonal relationships? Virilio boldly states, "getting closer to the 'distant' takes you away proportionally from the 'near' (and dear) - the friend, the relative, the neighbour - thus making strangers, if not actual enemies, of all who are close at hand" (20).
.... And before I leave this post....... what of our telepresence via military drones?
There's so much Virilio has gotten me thinking about. Perhaps I should take some time to mull it over.
Foucault Group Project
| 0 comments |
Working through the Spirograph as a metaphor for the archive/discourse (and the intersection of the two), our group explored the intersection of the Olympics, YouTube, and NBC as there have been authoritative efforts to construct, limit, and direct a discourse. YouTube as a democratized archive has come under great authority, reducing the enunciative possibilities on this particular surface, though even restricted and ostracized statements become part of the larger discourse.
A collective Foucault...
| 0 comments |
The following is our collective blog (Emily, Heather, Jimmy, and myself) for the next portion of the reading:
This time we'll be discussing the statement... so something in order to read that concept would work. It is interesting that Foucault doesn't give examples of his work. He leaves it pretty conceptual. That is, until later when he reads closely things like madness, prisons, and sexuality in light of the foundations he's established.
Maybe this will help, though: "it is not in itself a unit, but a function" (87). AND it's a function that "reveals [structures and possible unities]" (87).
I can't help but think of a 'statement' in a normal way that I would --- about somethign "making a statement," or something "saying something." Like Avatar "making a statement" about war. I feel like that's a rather over-simplified understanding of it... but because Foucault does his best to NOT give us a clear understanding, I feel like that's what I am left with.
The University of Phoenix instructs of faculty to use Emoticons. Perhaps this pertains to the statement in an interesting way. Emoticon as statement.
:)
So we have symbols that make up statements that then create discursive formations. Wikipedia is a discursive formation.
And as I take it, we can't have statements without symbols. Because statements have to have a level of materiality to exist--whether it's oral, written, etc.
Although, as far as I can tell, Foucault doesn't give examples of visually rhetorical statements... they are primarily linguistic for him.
Statements exist in a complex web with other statements and absolutely cannot stand by themselves in order to be a statement; their existence depends on the existence of the other statements with which they relate. Although this connection to other statements is distinguished from "context."
Also, a statement cannot be defined by a proposition or an author, but can contain both. I am not sure at this point if it can contain just one or the other, but I think so. Sometimes the creator of a statement is an actor or even a reader... So an "author," in its broadest sense, is very likely always there in some sense.
This is all just background to get my head about it. I think statements in Wikipedia definitely qualify because a. It's a level of materiality 2. There are other statements to create a web of meaning 3. There are authors and propositions but they don't alone define the statements 4. There are rules with which the statements in Wikipedia must operate, or actually Wikipedia will throw them out or write a note that the sources aren't adequate...what else
One thing I was confused about is in the Enunciative Function chapter, Foucault discusses how statements can't exist alone--like I mentioned previously--but how did statements ever even begin? I mean in terms of Wikipedia, that concept isn't hard to digest. Also, in relation to Wikipedia--multiple authors/ enunciators / what have you can repeat the same statement, just a different occurrence of enunciation. It's like, someone goes into Wikipedia, gets some information/ meaning /group of statements, and passes that information on to a friend or a report...same statement, different enunciation.
Also, since Foucault says a statement is deeper, structurally--though not always meaningfully--than some sort of psychological function (such as a speaker acting on a rhetorical situation, I guess, or a certain motive), it would make sense that Wikipedia is a collection of statements. At the root of Wikipedia is something much deeper than a rhetorical situation--some sort of more unmoving meaning to things. Fact, I guess, for lack of a better term. Would statements be that term I am looking for?
Wikipedia is a classic example of social construction, so yes it is a much deeper rhetorical situation. Maybe that is where the enunciation comes into the discussion.
Also, I like on page 104 where he uses the term "agreed code" when discussing statements. I feel like Wikipedia, in all its socially-constructed glory, centers around this "agreed code" or what is truth. I think that "agreed code" is what Foucault means are statements--meanings that follow establish rules, codes, ideologies, etc. of other units of discourse, and form a complex web of meaning--but meaning nonetheless. Or perhaps that statements exist in relation to this agreed code, both abiding by it and creating it. For a discourse to exist, those involved must be "talking about 'the same thing', by placing themselves at 'the same level' or at 'the same distance', by deploying 'the same conceptual field'" (126).
[Though, for all the social-constructioniness of Foucault, I can understand how one would read him as a structuralist, with Foucault saying things like: "there are not, in such cases, the same number of statements as there are languages used, but a single group of statements in different linguistic forms" (104). I don't think Foucault was really trying to be structuralistic there, as there is context to that sentence, but I can see one viewing that extracted statement as a logical unfolding of Foucaultian thought.]
Another quote I like: a statement is "too bound up with what surrounds it and supports it to be as free as a pure form (it is more than a law of construction governing a group of elements), it is endowed with a certain modifiable heaviness, a weight relative to the field in which it is placed, a constancy that allows various users, a temporal permanence that does not have the intertia of a mere trace or mark, and which does not sleep on its own past" (105).
I feel like this quote has social construction of truth written all over it. (No pun intended). First of all, a statement cannot ever be merely relative even though it can change itself to become a new, more meaningful statement. Or newly meaningful statement...anyway--a statement has "temporal permanence." Semi-permanence in that it belongs to a field, is caught up with other statements that are the basis for it's definition, etc.--but it's only "temporal permanence." Such as his example for what the theory of the Earth being round meant before they actually discovered it...how that statement changed because the field changed. In terms of Wikipedia, just think of all the statements that will change and become new statements over time. Because as he also says on page 105 as well--""men produce, manipluate use, transform, exchange, combine, decompose and recompose, and possibly destory." It's not something "said once and for all." And if there was any Truth with a capital T behind a statement, it would be once and for all, and have that finality. Which is so great about Wikipedia--there's no finality at all. We can go in there and change any entry we want right now. I feel like it embodies a collection of statements in Foucault's terms even better than an old school encyclopedia.
The discussion of Wikipedia is an interesting example because it exists at this intersection of some important Foucaultian concepts. On one hand, Wikipedia is an opening up of discourse - affording individual voice that counters hegemonic institutional knowledge. Wikipedia is not the same as Encyclopedia Britanica. Yet, it is bound by institutional practices - even discipline. Foucault could almost have been defining Wikipedia on page 130, saying, "the archive defines a particular level: that of a practice that causes a multiplicity of statements to emerge [...]; between tradition and oblivion, it reveals the rules of a practice that enables statements both to survive and to undergo regular modification. It is the general system of the formation and transformation of statements."
And let us not forget that the word archive is etymylogically connected to the word, archon, which means ruler. Thus, our archives have attained a kind of rule over our ways of thinking. See my project concerning this issue at http://theyellowrobot.com/foucault.html.
Lastly, we may consider how the statement, while interstingly explored through the constructs of Wikipedia, may exist without meaning, context, or referent at all. Foucault writes, "Nor is it [the statement] superposable to the relation that may exist between a sentence and its meaning" (90). Foucault's example of AZERT shows that there can be a statement that exists aside from traditionally held conceptualizations of reality or intended thought. So, while Wikipedia includes many, many carefully and socially constructed statements, there may be statements out there that lack many of the aspects that are necessary for the language to be used in a distinctly encyclopedic manner.
The question is just how bare bones can a statement be? I tried to look for a statement this morning at 5:30 a.m. in the water droplets on my shower curtain, but couldn't find one there. But maybe someone else could have...
This time we'll be discussing the statement... so something in order to read that concept would work. It is interesting that Foucault doesn't give examples of his work. He leaves it pretty conceptual. That is, until later when he reads closely things like madness, prisons, and sexuality in light of the foundations he's established.
Maybe this will help, though: "it is not in itself a unit, but a function" (87). AND it's a function that "reveals [structures and possible unities]" (87).
I can't help but think of a 'statement' in a normal way that I would --- about somethign "making a statement," or something "saying something." Like Avatar "making a statement" about war. I feel like that's a rather over-simplified understanding of it... but because Foucault does his best to NOT give us a clear understanding, I feel like that's what I am left with.
The University of Phoenix instructs of faculty to use Emoticons. Perhaps this pertains to the statement in an interesting way. Emoticon as statement.
:)
So we have symbols that make up statements that then create discursive formations. Wikipedia is a discursive formation.
And as I take it, we can't have statements without symbols. Because statements have to have a level of materiality to exist--whether it's oral, written, etc.
Although, as far as I can tell, Foucault doesn't give examples of visually rhetorical statements... they are primarily linguistic for him.
Statements exist in a complex web with other statements and absolutely cannot stand by themselves in order to be a statement; their existence depends on the existence of the other statements with which they relate. Although this connection to other statements is distinguished from "context."
Also, a statement cannot be defined by a proposition or an author, but can contain both. I am not sure at this point if it can contain just one or the other, but I think so. Sometimes the creator of a statement is an actor or even a reader... So an "author," in its broadest sense, is very likely always there in some sense.
This is all just background to get my head about it. I think statements in Wikipedia definitely qualify because a. It's a level of materiality 2. There are other statements to create a web of meaning 3. There are authors and propositions but they don't alone define the statements 4. There are rules with which the statements in Wikipedia must operate, or actually Wikipedia will throw them out or write a note that the sources aren't adequate...what else
One thing I was confused about is in the Enunciative Function chapter, Foucault discusses how statements can't exist alone--like I mentioned previously--but how did statements ever even begin? I mean in terms of Wikipedia, that concept isn't hard to digest. Also, in relation to Wikipedia--multiple authors/ enunciators / what have you can repeat the same statement, just a different occurrence of enunciation. It's like, someone goes into Wikipedia, gets some information/ meaning /group of statements, and passes that information on to a friend or a report...same statement, different enunciation.
Also, since Foucault says a statement is deeper, structurally--though not always meaningfully--than some sort of psychological function (such as a speaker acting on a rhetorical situation, I guess, or a certain motive), it would make sense that Wikipedia is a collection of statements. At the root of Wikipedia is something much deeper than a rhetorical situation--some sort of more unmoving meaning to things. Fact, I guess, for lack of a better term. Would statements be that term I am looking for?
Wikipedia is a classic example of social construction, so yes it is a much deeper rhetorical situation. Maybe that is where the enunciation comes into the discussion.
Also, I like on page 104 where he uses the term "agreed code" when discussing statements. I feel like Wikipedia, in all its socially-constructed glory, centers around this "agreed code" or what is truth. I think that "agreed code" is what Foucault means are statements--meanings that follow establish rules, codes, ideologies, etc. of other units of discourse, and form a complex web of meaning--but meaning nonetheless. Or perhaps that statements exist in relation to this agreed code, both abiding by it and creating it. For a discourse to exist, those involved must be "talking about 'the same thing', by placing themselves at 'the same level' or at 'the same distance', by deploying 'the same conceptual field'" (126).
[Though, for all the social-constructioniness of Foucault, I can understand how one would read him as a structuralist, with Foucault saying things like: "there are not, in such cases, the same number of statements as there are languages used, but a single group of statements in different linguistic forms" (104). I don't think Foucault was really trying to be structuralistic there, as there is context to that sentence, but I can see one viewing that extracted statement as a logical unfolding of Foucaultian thought.]
Another quote I like: a statement is "too bound up with what surrounds it and supports it to be as free as a pure form (it is more than a law of construction governing a group of elements), it is endowed with a certain modifiable heaviness, a weight relative to the field in which it is placed, a constancy that allows various users, a temporal permanence that does not have the intertia of a mere trace or mark, and which does not sleep on its own past" (105).
I feel like this quote has social construction of truth written all over it. (No pun intended). First of all, a statement cannot ever be merely relative even though it can change itself to become a new, more meaningful statement. Or newly meaningful statement...anyway--a statement has "temporal permanence." Semi-permanence in that it belongs to a field, is caught up with other statements that are the basis for it's definition, etc.--but it's only "temporal permanence." Such as his example for what the theory of the Earth being round meant before they actually discovered it...how that statement changed because the field changed. In terms of Wikipedia, just think of all the statements that will change and become new statements over time. Because as he also says on page 105 as well--""men produce, manipluate use, transform, exchange, combine, decompose and recompose, and possibly destory." It's not something "said once and for all." And if there was any Truth with a capital T behind a statement, it would be once and for all, and have that finality. Which is so great about Wikipedia--there's no finality at all. We can go in there and change any entry we want right now. I feel like it embodies a collection of statements in Foucault's terms even better than an old school encyclopedia.
The discussion of Wikipedia is an interesting example because it exists at this intersection of some important Foucaultian concepts. On one hand, Wikipedia is an opening up of discourse - affording individual voice that counters hegemonic institutional knowledge. Wikipedia is not the same as Encyclopedia Britanica. Yet, it is bound by institutional practices - even discipline. Foucault could almost have been defining Wikipedia on page 130, saying, "the archive defines a particular level: that of a practice that causes a multiplicity of statements to emerge [...]; between tradition and oblivion, it reveals the rules of a practice that enables statements both to survive and to undergo regular modification. It is the general system of the formation and transformation of statements."
And let us not forget that the word archive is etymylogically connected to the word, archon, which means ruler. Thus, our archives have attained a kind of rule over our ways of thinking. See my project concerning this issue at http://theyellowrobot.com/foucault.html.
Lastly, we may consider how the statement, while interstingly explored through the constructs of Wikipedia, may exist without meaning, context, or referent at all. Foucault writes, "Nor is it [the statement] superposable to the relation that may exist between a sentence and its meaning" (90). Foucault's example of AZERT shows that there can be a statement that exists aside from traditionally held conceptualizations of reality or intended thought. So, while Wikipedia includes many, many carefully and socially constructed statements, there may be statements out there that lack many of the aspects that are necessary for the language to be used in a distinctly encyclopedic manner.
The question is just how bare bones can a statement be? I tried to look for a statement this morning at 5:30 a.m. in the water droplets on my shower curtain, but couldn't find one there. But maybe someone else could have...
Foucaultian Relations
| 0 comments |
As an examination and performance of Foucaultian relation inquiry, below is our wave regarding the reading:
Fahrenheit 464
| 0 comments |
In some ways these next sections of Ulmer's Internet Invention were pleasing, and in otherwise troublesome. I was pleased to see Ulmer more explicitly lay out his line of thought from mystory to electracy (e.g., 42). This work is more deliberately unfolded for the reader than say Electronic Monuments. Let me begin by replicating the key components in his line of thought, if not even more explicitly:
But let's grant that everything Ulmer argues for is true. What, though, are we risking in the pursuit of electracy? Are we even pursuing the right ends? Are we seeking what they sought, or are we seeking what Ulmer tells us to seek?
Are we putting too much stock in electracy? AND is electracy only linked to the digital apparatus? What if the digital/electronic world were to come toppling down? There are plenty of fictional narratives about a world in which the electronic apparatai dominate (the EPIC movie posted by Lauren is a rather captivating example of such ---- give it a chance and you'll get drawn into it), but there are also equally as many reasonably-plausible narratives of a world in which the digital/electronic/electrately-capable no longer reigns supreme (or even survives).
Some might say that we simply must harness the potential power of electracy - form it in its infancy - arguing that the technological genie is out of the bottle so now is the time to determine is productive value. It is all to convenient and naive to simply say "I don't think the internet is going anywhere anytime soon." Really? So scenarios of an accidental war that obliterates infrastructure, successful aggression from a hostile nation that represses technology, economic downturn that by necessity or choice draws individuals away from technology, a shortage in fuel resources that results in power rationing, or a serious of legal victories that hampers the Net aren't enough? (Ted Trainer, for instance, argues that de-development is inevitable; it's just a question of whether we want to go about it the hard way or the catastrophic way)
As such, is electracy necessary for (de)consultation? I kind of hope not. And given that Ulmer is speaking of (de)consulting within "the context of specialized knowledge" (41) even in his efforts to decrease disciplinarity (24), are we not inevitably setting up the same top-down system of experts? Well, of course these are super-creative experts given their newly found subjective/introspective enlightenment...
I do not mean to be unnecessarily combative. In fact, I don't even think I am necessarily completely right in the direction this line of inquiry clearly seems to be taking. Yet, I find these questions to be quite important to consider.
There have been countless numbers of ideas formulated in non-electrate fashions that have made impacts on cultures. Take, for instance, the Tchantches puppets of Belgium. By performing (a concept that is important to Ulmer - p38) narratives that highlighted the fragmented nature of the culture, the middle-lower class (the bulk of just about everyone) banded together in ways that effected real change. Unity through a declaration of dis-unity. (Now, of course, the government tried to coopt these efforts with some success, but that's another story).
* * *
I happen to have grown up outside of and gone to school in the "Plastic Thermoforming Capital of the World." 464 Degrees Fahrenheit is the temperature at which the PolyStyrene your computer is made out of will melt. If that happens, before or after we learn/create/explore electracy, what does that mean for us? It seems like an important question...
Subjectivity is key to understanding images/imaging (i.e., Barthes punctum)
Natural State hinders imag-ination
Subjectivity/Social Location is key to (de)consulting (i.e., a bottom-up/multi-voice/creative approach)
Electracy requires use/understanding of image
Electracy is key to consultation
MyStory is a key for understanding/interrogating subjectivity/social location
MyStory is a key for understanding image
MyStory is thus key to electracy and consultation
I now see what Ulmer is claiming. Why, though, is electracy necessary for consultation? Is it as simple as Blogger allowing self-publishing? I hope not. Is it because the MyStory route provides this Utopian mechanism of freeing our minds such that new and amazing solutions will be produced? I have a hard time getting on board with that... especially given what I see as a problematically (and ironically) reductionist perspective at work in the MyStory (an "Aptitude Test" ??! p27)...
But let's grant that everything Ulmer argues for is true. What, though, are we risking in the pursuit of electracy? Are we even pursuing the right ends? Are we seeking what they sought, or are we seeking what Ulmer tells us to seek?
Are we putting too much stock in electracy? AND is electracy only linked to the digital apparatus? What if the digital/electronic world were to come toppling down? There are plenty of fictional narratives about a world in which the electronic apparatai dominate (the EPIC movie posted by Lauren is a rather captivating example of such ---- give it a chance and you'll get drawn into it), but there are also equally as many reasonably-plausible narratives of a world in which the digital/electronic/electrately-capable no longer reigns supreme (or even survives).
Some might say that we simply must harness the potential power of electracy - form it in its infancy - arguing that the technological genie is out of the bottle so now is the time to determine is productive value. It is all to convenient and naive to simply say "I don't think the internet is going anywhere anytime soon." Really? So scenarios of an accidental war that obliterates infrastructure, successful aggression from a hostile nation that represses technology, economic downturn that by necessity or choice draws individuals away from technology, a shortage in fuel resources that results in power rationing, or a serious of legal victories that hampers the Net aren't enough? (Ted Trainer, for instance, argues that de-development is inevitable; it's just a question of whether we want to go about it the hard way or the catastrophic way)
As such, is electracy necessary for (de)consultation? I kind of hope not. And given that Ulmer is speaking of (de)consulting within "the context of specialized knowledge" (41) even in his efforts to decrease disciplinarity (24), are we not inevitably setting up the same top-down system of experts? Well, of course these are super-creative experts given their newly found subjective/introspective enlightenment...
I do not mean to be unnecessarily combative. In fact, I don't even think I am necessarily completely right in the direction this line of inquiry clearly seems to be taking. Yet, I find these questions to be quite important to consider.
There have been countless numbers of ideas formulated in non-electrate fashions that have made impacts on cultures. Take, for instance, the Tchantches puppets of Belgium. By performing (a concept that is important to Ulmer - p38) narratives that highlighted the fragmented nature of the culture, the middle-lower class (the bulk of just about everyone) banded together in ways that effected real change. Unity through a declaration of dis-unity. (Now, of course, the government tried to coopt these efforts with some success, but that's another story). * * *
I happen to have grown up outside of and gone to school in the "Plastic Thermoforming Capital of the World." 464 Degrees Fahrenheit is the temperature at which the PolyStyrene your computer is made out of will melt. If that happens, before or after we learn/create/explore electracy, what does that mean for us? It seems like an important question...
Interesting "Work"...
| 1 comments |I must say, I have found this last half of Rettberg's book to be quite interesting. I think it's because in the latter half of the book, we finally get past all of the perfunctory "what is blogging" stuff (stuff that was more necessary to write when she wrote the book, even only a couple years ago, and stuff that is more necessary for some who haven't blogged before). It's not that any of the individual concepts that she discusses are all that philosophically complex (such as blogs as episodic narratives), but the full range of interacting concepts is really intriguing - making the whole of the inquiry so much more than the sum of its parts.
One of those concepts - one that operates on a number of levels - that I kept thinking about during this latter half was WORK. Work happens in a number of different ways with blogs, and Rettberg gets at that conversation through a variety of her examples. Given the number of ways that it works and the rate at which my gears are trying to turn, I'll strive to be concise...
Successful blogging takes many hours of work - limiting those who can do it well (e.g. "[Kottke] found blogging to be increasingly time-consuming and that it put a drain on other important parts of his life, so he had considered quitting" [136].") and the trade-off is not always worth it (e.g., Justin Hall [119] who quit blogging [final VideoBlog entry in '05], but is now married and blogging again). Maintenance/Management of the blog can be quite intense as well, such as Slashdot's mechanisms ("registered users are assigned moderation duties on certain days" [104]).
Journalistic and filter blogging (e.g., 135) has its own immense time requirements (e.g., CNN's iReport vetting process gives unwritten "rules" to follow along with standard journalistic practices - everyone over 18, aware of iReport intentions, etc.).
This work by bloggers can decrease the amount of work done by traditional media and consumers (e.g., provide a form of "survey" for the media [108] as well as a wealth of material such as in CNN's iReport; Filter blogs decrease prosumer work).
Generating and Maintaining Readership/Followers takes work (e.g., "[Fictional high-school student with leukemia] Kaycee's creator put a lot of time and care into building and maintaining relationships with her readers" [124]; Explicit strategic work is sometimes necessary, such as when Allbritton [blogger traveling to Iraq] "placed [readers who donated to his trip] on an email list where they received his reports from teh field several hours earlier than regular blog readers" [102]; and the IMaLUCY YouTube channel has required further marketing and upkeep since its creation - including responding to messages and courting subscribers to elicit videos.)
A Rough Start to Ulmer
| 0 comments |
I do not mean to be intentionally critical or cranky. In fact, academic discourse too easily turns to criticism - tracks/ruts that I want to avoid getting stuck in. Yet, I can't help but start off this reading of Ulmer with a shaking of my head. It's going to be work for met to get on board with this one.
I will begin by saying that there are some things in his work that I personally find neat - the whole notion of "inventing electracy" for instance is pretty compelling. The big hangup I have right now, though, is the necessity of the MYSTORY to the whole enterprise.
To be honest, I do not think that the MyStory is an essential part of inventing the internet in particular or electracy in general. I do not. I'll even go so far as to say "It is not." While creating one's MyStory may very well be an electrate way of imagerically composing and autobiography, it is simply not really a cornerstone to electracy. Does Ulmer say that it is? Well, certainly there is LOTS of the book left to go - don't get me wrong. At this point, though, it seems that he is setting up the MyStory to be a part of his subjective, bottom-up approach to knowledge/solutions/expression/invention. In Electronic Monuments, Ulmer makes clear his desire to have the EmerAgency work as a challenge to artificial institutional homogeneity/limitation of choices. Electracy ideally will afford new, unique voices to be heard. But WHY is the MyStory a critical component for this? I really do not think that it is.
I am not saying that the MyStory is useless. Certainly no. In the context of Ulmer's pedagogy, it could be seen as one of any possible number of assignments, similar to the variety of assignments one might find assigned in a traditional, literate composition course. Write a creative short story. Write an expository essay. Write an autobiography. Now, write that autobiography with your new/emerging/developing electrate knowledge. (Oh, and this electrate autobiography should be based on images -- a wide image/emblem, etc.). This is beneficial. In a composition course, a major goal is teaching the students to write - and the autiobiography is a vehicle for such. The MyStory is a vehicle for getting us into electracy (and getting electracy out of us), but it is not an essential/necessary component of electracy.
Now, one might say that the subjectivity argument made above is why the MyStory is so critical to electracy. That seems to embrace certain philosophical paradigms that have their own set of problems (and benefits, sure). Even if one ascribes to such a philosophical position, a robust introspective examination explained through the wide image/emblem seems like definitely one creative idea, but not THE creative idea - and certainly not one that serves as any sort of lynchpin. Ulmer argues that "identity behavior or subject formation is as much a part of an apparatus as are technology and institutions" (7), but the examples he gives at the end of the Intro and other examples like the ByStory do not seem to indicate this linkage that Ulmer hopes for in the context of the MyStory particularly. I suspect that is because this linkage does not exist. It seems that the Image is an artificially necessary element of the MyStory just as the MyStory is an artificially necessary component of inventing electracy.
Will this "increase my creativity" (8)? Perhaps. Actually, probably. But so would an assignment that asked me to compose a fictional short story - and do it electrately. AND that would not run up against all sorts of problems with a MyStory - like the desire NOT to Self-Disclose. Or the limitation in choosing a pseudo-fixed image/emblem (I KNOW I am going to have an electrate version of Buyer's Remorse at every stage of this process). Ulmer says that "the unexamined life is not worth living" (8), but examination does not require composition or broadcasting of said examination.
A couple last thoughts - First, I may be waaay overreading Ulmer's claims. Perhaps he is not at all saying that this is a cornerstone to electracy. Perhaps it's just one particular assignment that he finds profitable and uses as a way to get students engaged in electracy. If that's the case, though, I do not understand why so much of the work is devoted to the MyStory instead of looking more directly at electracy. Is the MyStory just his excuse to do psychoanalysis?
Second and finally, Ulmer seems to speak directly to folks like me in the Introduction, saying, "Students are not asked to "believe" but only to suspend their disbelief while trying the mystory as a genre for simulating the wide image" (8). While that still leaves my question about the image being artificial as well, I guess I'll give it a whirl. I will suspend my disbelief - but only insofar as it prevents activity. I will not suspend its function as critical skeptic throughout the process. I do not think that would even be possible.
I will begin by saying that there are some things in his work that I personally find neat - the whole notion of "inventing electracy" for instance is pretty compelling. The big hangup I have right now, though, is the necessity of the MYSTORY to the whole enterprise.
To be honest, I do not think that the MyStory is an essential part of inventing the internet in particular or electracy in general. I do not. I'll even go so far as to say "It is not." While creating one's MyStory may very well be an electrate way of imagerically composing and autobiography, it is simply not really a cornerstone to electracy. Does Ulmer say that it is? Well, certainly there is LOTS of the book left to go - don't get me wrong. At this point, though, it seems that he is setting up the MyStory to be a part of his subjective, bottom-up approach to knowledge/solutions/expression/invention. In Electronic Monuments, Ulmer makes clear his desire to have the EmerAgency work as a challenge to artificial institutional homogeneity/limitation of choices. Electracy ideally will afford new, unique voices to be heard. But WHY is the MyStory a critical component for this? I really do not think that it is.
I am not saying that the MyStory is useless. Certainly no. In the context of Ulmer's pedagogy, it could be seen as one of any possible number of assignments, similar to the variety of assignments one might find assigned in a traditional, literate composition course. Write a creative short story. Write an expository essay. Write an autobiography. Now, write that autobiography with your new/emerging/developing electrate knowledge. (Oh, and this electrate autobiography should be based on images -- a wide image/emblem, etc.). This is beneficial. In a composition course, a major goal is teaching the students to write - and the autiobiography is a vehicle for such. The MyStory is a vehicle for getting us into electracy (and getting electracy out of us), but it is not an essential/necessary component of electracy.
Now, one might say that the subjectivity argument made above is why the MyStory is so critical to electracy. That seems to embrace certain philosophical paradigms that have their own set of problems (and benefits, sure). Even if one ascribes to such a philosophical position, a robust introspective examination explained through the wide image/emblem seems like definitely one creative idea, but not THE creative idea - and certainly not one that serves as any sort of lynchpin. Ulmer argues that "identity behavior or subject formation is as much a part of an apparatus as are technology and institutions" (7), but the examples he gives at the end of the Intro and other examples like the ByStory do not seem to indicate this linkage that Ulmer hopes for in the context of the MyStory particularly. I suspect that is because this linkage does not exist. It seems that the Image is an artificially necessary element of the MyStory just as the MyStory is an artificially necessary component of inventing electracy.
Will this "increase my creativity" (8)? Perhaps. Actually, probably. But so would an assignment that asked me to compose a fictional short story - and do it electrately. AND that would not run up against all sorts of problems with a MyStory - like the desire NOT to Self-Disclose. Or the limitation in choosing a pseudo-fixed image/emblem (I KNOW I am going to have an electrate version of Buyer's Remorse at every stage of this process). Ulmer says that "the unexamined life is not worth living" (8), but examination does not require composition or broadcasting of said examination.
A couple last thoughts - First, I may be waaay overreading Ulmer's claims. Perhaps he is not at all saying that this is a cornerstone to electracy. Perhaps it's just one particular assignment that he finds profitable and uses as a way to get students engaged in electracy. If that's the case, though, I do not understand why so much of the work is devoted to the MyStory instead of looking more directly at electracy. Is the MyStory just his excuse to do psychoanalysis?
Second and finally, Ulmer seems to speak directly to folks like me in the Introduction, saying, "Students are not asked to "believe" but only to suspend their disbelief while trying the mystory as a genre for simulating the wide image" (8). While that still leaves my question about the image being artificial as well, I guess I'll give it a whirl. I will suspend my disbelief - but only insofar as it prevents activity. I will not suspend its function as critical skeptic throughout the process. I do not think that would even be possible.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
