Thursday, February 19, 2009
Ribofunk stream of thought
In Little Worker Di Filippo introduces a splice that acts independently on different parts of its DNA. This leads to the murder of Mister Michael's wife. I am having trouble understanding the logic behind this. A dog wouldn't kill it's owner's wife, a human wouldn't kill his friend's wife, and a wolverine wouldn't consciously decipher between the two. This ability to shift processes strikes me as impossible, particularly if there is so little "human" in such a being.
Tuesday, February 17, 2009
Humanity
There has been a lot of discussion about what makes us human, and at what point we cease to be so. I struggle most with the theory that we can become "something else"; that if we replace enough of the characteristics that make us human, with traits of another being, we become that. As humans, we are innately capable of perceiving, with some efficiency, what is and is not human. We identify physical attributes and movement with humanity, also communication. But there are subtleties to our perceptions, human indicators that we cannot easily define, such as a person's gaze, when one gets the "feeling" that they are trustworthy, honest, or understanding. Human creations such as robots are replications of life — they can be statistically accurate, and can learn to respond to situations in varying ways without prompting. But they are computing and acting on information that live beings have given them. As far as humans who obtain particular implants and the like, they are human until they cease to live. Regardless of the number of mechanical arms, horse cells and pig's feet one has, until they biologically "die", they are human. If you pronounce something dead, it can become anything. If another being takes residence in that body, it does not retain any of the life from the previous being, it simply gives life to the body it has obtained. If I do not die, I cannot become a new species. I can acquire traits that begin the process of evolution, but only if they are natural. It is simply not possible for a human with unnatural (in a strict biological sense) adaptations, such as mechanical implants, to give birth to a human with the same advancements. Cellular advancements, on the other hand, can be transferred genetically, but this does not affect the humanity of the next generation. If X cannot livingly become Y, then it cannot give birth to Y.
Tuesday, February 3, 2009
Response
"When is or was sex ever free of culture? Do you feel that the footage of animals having sex on Animal documentaries are then a means to insert (pun intended) them into the realm of culture?"
Well, no, meaning that sex itself is not a cultural act. And the first humans to procreate were not part of any particular culture group, perhaps other than the fact that they lived in different areas and really wanted ass. When most animals have sex, they are doing so solely to reproduce. It is primal. But the deeper meaning sex has acquired for humans is surely a result of adapted intelligence, culture, and materialism, isn't it? Its very hard to imagine this guy
(ignore the space ships)
worrying about setting the mood - much less giving a damn whether his mate was even interested. But this is what Burrough's does. He presents sex free of the culture we attribute to it. Where is the beauty, love...humanity?
Well, no, meaning that sex itself is not a cultural act. And the first humans to procreate were not part of any particular culture group, perhaps other than the fact that they lived in different areas and really wanted ass. When most animals have sex, they are doing so solely to reproduce. It is primal. But the deeper meaning sex has acquired for humans is surely a result of adapted intelligence, culture, and materialism, isn't it? Its very hard to imagine this guy
(ignore the space ships)
worrying about setting the mood - much less giving a damn whether his mate was even interested. But this is what Burrough's does. He presents sex free of the culture we attribute to it. Where is the beauty, love...humanity?
Monday, February 2, 2009
tTTE, class discussions
Well I'm clearly a mile or two behind on the blogging, so I'll be doing my best to make up for that here, beginning with some discussion of tTTE.
Burrough's novel begins with an identifiable structure, but by the third page, I was left what felt like strands of unrelated text plucked at random from the darkest places of Burrough's mind. Which, as class discussion has attempted to point out, may be a way of challenging the reader's perception of what is disturbing, taboo. As the book progresses, or rather as i read on, (progression hardly seems an apt description of the flow of Burrough's story, nor is it necessarily the goal) i become increasingly detached from the story. The style of writing Burrough's uses should be the focus, as long as I can't understand what I am reading. However, I will touch on the abundant, grotesque sexual content in the book, which seems to have usurped the entire storyline by page 5. There has been recent plurking that states, had male characters been replaced with female ones, there would not be such a widely disgusted response to the activities Burrough's so willingly douses his novel in. This is a completely unwarranted assertion. In fact, excerpts such as "the two bodies stuck together in a smell of KY and rectal mucus" leaves no evidence as to what gender either being is, but it nonetheless discomforting. Rectal mucus is rectal mucus. It is not use of gender roles that makes Burrough's work grotesque to us, it is his application of the senses. He applies odors (musty), adjectives (pulsating), and physical actions (diarrhea), to these sexual encounters, giving them an alienity (should be a word) to western humanity. Sex has become a cultural act, and as a result, is regarded with a dignity easily disturbed by otherwise discomforting sensations. This is why the book makes us uncomfortable, and is why it would do so regardless of the gender involved.
Burrough's novel begins with an identifiable structure, but by the third page, I was left what felt like strands of unrelated text plucked at random from the darkest places of Burrough's mind. Which, as class discussion has attempted to point out, may be a way of challenging the reader's perception of what is disturbing, taboo. As the book progresses, or rather as i read on, (progression hardly seems an apt description of the flow of Burrough's story, nor is it necessarily the goal) i become increasingly detached from the story. The style of writing Burrough's uses should be the focus, as long as I can't understand what I am reading. However, I will touch on the abundant, grotesque sexual content in the book, which seems to have usurped the entire storyline by page 5. There has been recent plurking that states, had male characters been replaced with female ones, there would not be such a widely disgusted response to the activities Burrough's so willingly douses his novel in. This is a completely unwarranted assertion. In fact, excerpts such as "the two bodies stuck together in a smell of KY and rectal mucus" leaves no evidence as to what gender either being is, but it nonetheless discomforting. Rectal mucus is rectal mucus. It is not use of gender roles that makes Burrough's work grotesque to us, it is his application of the senses. He applies odors (musty), adjectives (pulsating), and physical actions (diarrhea), to these sexual encounters, giving them an alienity (should be a word) to western humanity. Sex has become a cultural act, and as a result, is regarded with a dignity easily disturbed by otherwise discomforting sensations. This is why the book makes us uncomfortable, and is why it would do so regardless of the gender involved.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)