Saturday, December 08, 2007
ANT 323 – an eruption of the real
During a boring afternoon, I began thinking about the course, and it made me wonder whether the course is actually an eruption of the real for those that are taking it. Does learning about the constructedness of your reality debunk your reality? Does the real erupt into reality simply by learning about the fakeness of our reality? I would argue that it doesn’t. Simply knowing and learning something is quite different from the actual experience of that something. I believe that by just knowing about the constructiveness of reality, you have the notion of fakeness, yet you do not experience it. Because the reality is so pervasive in our everyday life, savvy reflexivity plays a rather small part in our understandings of the reality. Knowing something as constructed does not really intrude on our sense of reality because we have no idea of an alternative
I am not sure if anybody mentioned this in an earlier blog, but the movie The Matrix portrays the idea of the real and the reality very nicely. I think we should definitely watch this film in class. In the movie, the reality is characterized by the everyday life, and the protagonist, Neo, is freed from this fake world. It’s funny that Professor Kalmar mentioned déjà vu as a surplus of the real. In a part of the movie, Neo notices a déjà vu during his expedition back into the reality. Apparently, déjà vus in the movie is an indicator of the existence of the matrix (the symbolic). When the matrix needs to make a change in its programming, a déjà vu occurs as the lag time inbetween the changes. There is a very Buddhist philosophical outlook of the film. In the end, Neo is able to completely be freed, and he sees and understands the matrix as it is – just a construction. During the ending scene, Neo is shot by the agents (those trying to rid the human resistance and protect the reality, reinforcers of the matrix). But he does not die. His vision of the matrix has changed from seeing images projected by the matrix to seeing the matrix for what it really is – just a program. In the end, he actually sees the codes that the matrix uses to create the reality. I think he has become invincible when he is within the matrix program because he understands the construction of the reality. By understanding that it is fake, it cannot harm him. This is similar to the Buddhist view of the reaching of enlightenment, nirvana.
Being a Buddhist myself, I am swayed into believing that everything is the real. I do not believe there is true understanding of anything in the world. To understand is to make exclusions – you can only understand something through exlusion. What is a book? A book is something that has qualities that non-books do not have. The requirement of understanding anything is dependant on comparison. Human understanding of anything requires this notion of comparison and exclusionary categorization. So is the act of trying to understand something an eruption of the real? Surely, it allows us to understand the constructiveness of the reality. Yet this is often overlooked because we are so involved in the reality. I would argue that all knowledge, even knowledge about the existence of the real and reality, it all falls under the reality realm. There is no understanding of anything at all because to understand objects is to fall into the symbolic of our understanding through exclusion and comparison. So our course, ANT323, is not an eruption of the real because to understand the reality and the real purely through human rationalization is dependant on our ability to understand through the symbolic. I am beginning to sound like a nihilist now.
During a boring afternoon, I began thinking about the course, and it made me wonder whether the course is actually an eruption of the real for those that are taking it. Does learning about the constructedness of your reality debunk your reality? Does the real erupt into reality simply by learning about the fakeness of our reality? I would argue that it doesn’t. Simply knowing and learning something is quite different from the actual experience of that something. I believe that by just knowing about the constructiveness of reality, you have the notion of fakeness, yet you do not experience it. Because the reality is so pervasive in our everyday life, savvy reflexivity plays a rather small part in our understandings of the reality. Knowing something as constructed does not really intrude on our sense of reality because we have no idea of an alternative
I am not sure if anybody mentioned this in an earlier blog, but the movie The Matrix portrays the idea of the real and the reality very nicely. I think we should definitely watch this film in class. In the movie, the reality is characterized by the everyday life, and the protagonist, Neo, is freed from this fake world. It’s funny that Professor Kalmar mentioned déjà vu as a surplus of the real. In a part of the movie, Neo notices a déjà vu during his expedition back into the reality. Apparently, déjà vus in the movie is an indicator of the existence of the matrix (the symbolic). When the matrix needs to make a change in its programming, a déjà vu occurs as the lag time inbetween the changes. There is a very Buddhist philosophical outlook of the film. In the end, Neo is able to completely be freed, and he sees and understands the matrix as it is – just a construction. During the ending scene, Neo is shot by the agents (those trying to rid the human resistance and protect the reality, reinforcers of the matrix). But he does not die. His vision of the matrix has changed from seeing images projected by the matrix to seeing the matrix for what it really is – just a program. In the end, he actually sees the codes that the matrix uses to create the reality. I think he has become invincible when he is within the matrix program because he understands the construction of the reality. By understanding that it is fake, it cannot harm him. This is similar to the Buddhist view of the reaching of enlightenment, nirvana.
Being a Buddhist myself, I am swayed into believing that everything is the real. I do not believe there is true understanding of anything in the world. To understand is to make exclusions – you can only understand something through exlusion. What is a book? A book is something that has qualities that non-books do not have. The requirement of understanding anything is dependant on comparison. Human understanding of anything requires this notion of comparison and exclusionary categorization. So is the act of trying to understand something an eruption of the real? Surely, it allows us to understand the constructiveness of the reality. Yet this is often overlooked because we are so involved in the reality. I would argue that all knowledge, even knowledge about the existence of the real and reality, it all falls under the reality realm. There is no understanding of anything at all because to understand objects is to fall into the symbolic of our understanding through exclusion and comparison. So our course, ANT323, is not an eruption of the real because to understand the reality and the real purely through human rationalization is dependant on our ability to understand through the symbolic. I am beginning to sound like a nihilist now.
Monday, December 03, 2007
I've been thinking about what was covered in class regarding the issue of cloning. We do have clones living amongst us, albeit natural clones. I'm talking about people of multiple births, like identical twins and triplets. What are your attitudes towards them? Do you see them as individuals, or perhaps they are linked in some mysterious, mystical way?
There is a fascination for all kinds of twin stories. Like twins who are so alike it is uncanny. I'm thinking about stories of twins who were separated at birth and reunited some decades later, and when they compared their lives, the similarities in their lives, names, jobs, interests... etc boggles the mind. Also, stories of twins who are completely different, with one good and one bad, sort of like two halves of a whole. I think there are parallels with what people find fascinating about twins, the myths and the stereotypes; with that which people feel uneasy, if not horrifying about clones. What do you think?
I can understand the uneasiness the idea of creating life and creating humanity; I see it as being similar to some extent what we covered in class about Mitchell and his point about the creation of an image. But it is difficult for me to understand what the big deal is with clones and individuality. Then again, I'm a twin. The individuality of clones is an idea I accept instinctively. It's another thought experiment that disturbs me more, that shakes my concept of individuality.... you know the one where supposing matter can be converted to energy and transmitted, and with such a transportation technology, the object is destroyed at one end and recreated at the other end; is that recreation a copy or the original? And supposing that machine breaks down and the object is recreated at one end but not destroyed at the original end, is the end copy still the original? If it is a person that was transported, and both people are identical to the point when they have same memories, which is the original?
Re clones, I will say one thing more - judging from the comments I have heard over the years when people first realise I am a twin, I am not hopeful that if clones should ever become a reality, they would be seen as anything but second-class humans, to serve the needs and wants of the original people whose DNA these clones were created from. I can't tell you how often I've heard this, when people first realise I'm a twin, "You are a twin?! I wish I had a twin; I'd make him/her do all my homework". Even from university students, whom if you ask me, should be old enough to know better. As though if you had a twin, your twin would "only" be a genetic copy and you are somehow the greater being.
There is a fascination for all kinds of twin stories. Like twins who are so alike it is uncanny. I'm thinking about stories of twins who were separated at birth and reunited some decades later, and when they compared their lives, the similarities in their lives, names, jobs, interests... etc boggles the mind. Also, stories of twins who are completely different, with one good and one bad, sort of like two halves of a whole. I think there are parallels with what people find fascinating about twins, the myths and the stereotypes; with that which people feel uneasy, if not horrifying about clones. What do you think?
I can understand the uneasiness the idea of creating life and creating humanity; I see it as being similar to some extent what we covered in class about Mitchell and his point about the creation of an image. But it is difficult for me to understand what the big deal is with clones and individuality. Then again, I'm a twin. The individuality of clones is an idea I accept instinctively. It's another thought experiment that disturbs me more, that shakes my concept of individuality.... you know the one where supposing matter can be converted to energy and transmitted, and with such a transportation technology, the object is destroyed at one end and recreated at the other end; is that recreation a copy or the original? And supposing that machine breaks down and the object is recreated at one end but not destroyed at the original end, is the end copy still the original? If it is a person that was transported, and both people are identical to the point when they have same memories, which is the original?
Re clones, I will say one thing more - judging from the comments I have heard over the years when people first realise I am a twin, I am not hopeful that if clones should ever become a reality, they would be seen as anything but second-class humans, to serve the needs and wants of the original people whose DNA these clones were created from. I can't tell you how often I've heard this, when people first realise I'm a twin, "You are a twin?! I wish I had a twin; I'd make him/her do all my homework". Even from university students, whom if you ask me, should be old enough to know better. As though if you had a twin, your twin would "only" be a genetic copy and you are somehow the greater being.
What Do Pictures Want
I found this interview with Mitchell that was interesting. His ideas are a little different here. i.e. he mentioned in the interview that pictures would like to be kissed (which wasn't in the book). He talks about how some pictures don't want anything from you at all, some of them would rather you not look at them. Some pictures need you to complete them, then have a lack that you have to fill. Also that they have an effect on us, the field of desire that they open in us.
It starts after time 5:00 min.
http://badatsports.com/2006/episode-62-wjt-mitchell/#respond
It starts after time 5:00 min.
http://badatsports.com/2006/episode-62-wjt-mitchell/#respond
