Blog cut-up

the cutup loved. friday’s class standardize perfect. The product memory is genuine character Some awkward proverbial paper and find out desire to kill depth. Reminds us that main goal simply addressed other peoples reflections. Freshmen thing children, right? Function like Madina inactive could be bouncing off about pain. Kurt custard at a fixed dog urinating marble movement butter bikes. I’ve more excitement ride past Jesus best cupcake discounting Tony. I worked love not to say more or less peanut I tell that means putting the most important comprehension down a Reeses top a lot. amnesia through some bullshit effort my life downhill inferior dough rage business. ride deemed overhead pretty recipe trail excited cookies designed. wool class Also, tube die have taste cute amazing walk potlucks. The small would listen. We often put ourselves in that idea from this half sight. The thing that character more attention in real life becomes self. Like a I do, sure sight a little bit main definitely leave out thinking. everything. Even if he is mysterious or trying complex projectors, trying to sound give In the thing large universe. Rooms Or at least, genes real life effect it asks PlurkMobile. it is love. We’ve been trained but it was difficult. part of me if we go after quality of life splices. I’m pretty convinced If anything were granted my environment in the beginning my altered understanding of sex complex ventures outside what defines it. we, as people may make us factually exclude your woman. current mythology. realize What can love it may be bigger? Just ego in a few thousand trans-place self-important horses within the world. am I interpret still true invasive superiority only question yourself and time about size and dilemma. of the splices Perhaps people are twice sober which advanced page 22. the whole planet roles this light rubbing technology paradox resulting in brain over think. this emphasis on empiricism obviously practiced expanding reality agree self electronics will vanish. understanding want and relative scheme interaction jerk robots deserve Every operates organisms we.  Also, Kindness is a tool within Humans escaping stimulation if a self will sculpt a few thousand surpassing hands. someone else’s life will venture out of our size or intelligence but help to control the better. changing watched Americans center quality and pegs, equalize injustice and quality. Broken future fixing a certain constant saved by Technology to my life my “success” the advances. From this, sedentary apathetic itself opt exist wondering current misanthropy. my underoos Medical net to insure it’s on. the reader LuvsMyCat77disinterst in my life opportunities completely on the virtual steer you’re sick of feeling for. So it will class the people about funny perspective despite where undeserving cusp success. explain it.

 

I feel a little closer to Jordi now. 

Final Topic: the small

The small is something that is almost impossible to define. Concepts addressed in class are difficult to comprehend and make the idea of the small even more complicated and incomprehensible than it already is. Everything is real. Everything that is thought is a manifestation, therefore making it exist, therefore making is as real as the things we can see and feel. But of course we are not sure that sight and feeling are real themselves. This drives me absolutely crazy. How can facts be disregarded as unimportant or false? I like the idea of denying reality, but in order to deny something, you have to leave it in tact. The way that we have learned to think and the angle we’ve learned to see things from completely thrashes reality and fact into a million pieces, then where the real issue spurs from the reassembly. Like a cut-up poem which makes no sense and ruins knowledge completely. It is from this universe that the interpretation of the small becomes self. Who we are is made up of everything. But that everything is actually small. The Invention of Morel challenges reality. And the main character is obviously pretty huge in importance, but what he is made of is what we really see. The recording device is the small. The thing that is essential to his importance, but not to his self. The things that make the large possible is the small. Science fiction is a large. Science is small, but essential. “Science to build the fiction.” Tony Prichard said this in class on Monday and it is the perfect example of the small almost, but not quite being the big.  Ribofunk asks the question “how much of us is human?” Percentages can be assigned, but even those percentages are irrelevant relative to the small, which is our genes. Our identity. In all three examples, the small is something different. In Morel, small refers to on small part of a much larger plot and complex character. The recording device is just the most tangible small, but so many more things are essential like the island, the projectors, the reactions. This is the most like real life and humans, with an infinite amount of different components making a whole and it’s so complex that even changing one thing is overwhelming because so much is affected and so many variables are involved. This is much like the way that I define the “self” that we’ve been discussing. Incomprehensibly complex and immune to tampering for even if we did, we wouldn’t know the effect. With no controlled variable, anything could be the cause and it is just a hopeless mind-fuck. Science fiction has two parts. Simpler than the prior example/identity of the small, science is the essence. As a completely dependent structure, without science it would simply be fiction. Science alone is a small because it is seen as highly influential, but in order to influence and not be the change/the effect, it has to be nano. It is beautiful because it becomes even smaller when thrown into science fiction. Though it remains small, Science is nothing similar to what it is when part of science fiction. In two ways, it demonstrates nano to the t.  The Ribofunk definition of small is all the same. Genes. It is who we are, an the distribution changes, it is all made of up the same tiny things. It’s interesting that the way that they are organized is what matters. Percentages simply split the nano into different groups, but genes are so small that they are not affected by this grouping.  Much like atoms. Everything is made of the same thing, yet different products are possible. All three of these definitions of the small are used to create identity. Who we are is nothing tangible. What everything is, actually, we will never see. The big is the only thing we can actually view. We do not see our genes; we see their effect (the big). We see the branches moving but not the wind. The Science Fiction but not the Science. Everything, if the nano is ignored, just is. Like magic. This is life and the reality is that without looking closer, we will never truly understand what is happening. The nano is behind everything in the universe and it creates, invisibly, what we refer to as life. A little like God, is it not? 

Final: Plurk

Watching Tony Prichard plurk in class is why I chose this prompt. To see a man become an other. Something that he created and continues to create and manipulate. Something that he loves and thrives off of. And the way that it’s done is through misspellings and impulse and extreme contemplation. But what is most interesting to me is that despite the fact that we have a huge barrier up (we are bodiless, free of tones, lacking inflection, strictly words! Able to become ANYTHING!) we still show our soft sides. Express our true feelings on subjects. Perhaps this is because plurk is so real that if we lied, we feel that we’d lose ourselves. This is the most surprising thing to me about nanotext. That despite his experience, he still reveals his true self. I was shocked to read that he liked our class and would miss us. For some reason I do not associate a faceless force with sensitive emotions. Is this part of the plan to make him more complex? He is fairly absolute about so many things and seems to be an outrageously well-educated informer, yet is able to be pushed around by our drunk professor. How does this make sense? And when does nanotext become Tony? Perhaps there is a breach where the two cannot be differentiated. It is not when we see nanotext typing. It is not when he talks about Tony. And to say that it’s when he really means it is inaccurate because I’m fairly certain that he believes everything posted. Maybe it’s not important to differentiate the two because both are an extension of the other. A Doppelganger of sorts. 

Last Tuesday Dominic said something along the lines of “Plurk is sort of like people’s mental diarrhea.” This may be true, but it is useful shit. Ideas that are unedited offer a view into someone’s life when they are off guard. I assume that people read my plurks, but not very thoroughly and don’t pay enough attention to notice trends or draw conclusions. This however is a very false security. Someone’s plurks/stupid ideas might be the purest way to judge them. One of my favorite things is following Mantra, reading his well thought out statements and challenging responses, then discovering tetris porn among his posts. The Internet provides an environment where an uncensored (proven by cephalopod’s unending talk of her undies) self is acceptable. In class, we are expected to be respectable students by society’s standards. Plurk is our freedom from that.

When we experience people’s thoughts sans their bodies, our judgments are more pure, whole, genuine. Over eighty percent of communication is non-verbal. To put things strictly in words is a completely new experience. To be judged only by what you’re saying and have your words stand alone. This makes what is said more powerful and you powerless. Because who we are becomes something that doesn’t matter. Our words a complete other from ourselves.

Plurk allows us to control our other. Of the millions, this may be the closest we come to actually creating an other. Though we post stupid impulsive, ridiculous ideas, this is perhaps the point. That plurk is the other that first comes to mind. The natural us. Our instantaneous reactions thought out for less than thirty seconds. But the natural us is not the true self so that theory can be tossed.

So much of what I do I feel needs explanation. I want to explain my creative endeavor. I want to explain my plurks. But the 140 words is awesome at forbidding this. I feel as if I’m breaking the rules if I post 140 words continuously. Putting my out of my comfort zone makes it exciting to post even a simple thought and makes me realize that they do become reality by my thinking them. Plurk makes the idea that thoughts are creations tangible and enhances the experience and feeling that our thoughts become our other. The way that I think has changed. It has become brief. Then I interpret it. It’s remarkable and wonderful and I think is helping me get closer to thinking without an expected result. A statement spurs a thousand thoughts and I can become my own muse.

The experience of plurk in class is perfect. The interaction of being bodiless and in a group setting simultaneously is bizarre and wonderful. This is the ultimate social setting. To say what you want and have it be taken objectively or to really state an opinion and be heard human to human. It makes it so you can convey almost anything you think in a way that will be interpreted how you want. Human interaction is so binding with mistakes that can be made and miscommunications. The option to be bodiless or human is awesome and makes what is said meaningful. Knowing that the idea could mean a totally different thing if presented in a different way and that the author intentionally chose the best way to communicate. Most of what is said is heard just the way I want and because of that, I feel that I've gotten to know my classmate so much better knowing their plurk selves than ever could be achieved with lame human interaction. 

Creative Endeavor

To do what you ask is impossible

I cannot live just for the sake of it. 

I cannot live in a perpetually ruptured reality. 

It is incomprehensible 

Too simple

Entirely frightening

But it's gonna be beautiful.

I've reccently been curious about the cupcake store phenomenon. Apparently stores are staying afloat in this down economy selling nothing but cupcakes. I've had people rave to me about a cupcake they got at this or that cutsie cupcakery as if it gave birth to a litter of kittens while rescuing jesus from a flaming elevator. I love enthusiasm and was swept up in the excitement. This was until I took the time to eat one. Not to say it wasn't good, but it was just a cupcake. It was most likely the best cupcake of my life, I don't think that means much because, again, it was just a cupcake. I was expecting a little creativity, but no, just cake and frosting. Putting a mini reses cup on top of the peanut butter cupcake is as much as they did. Here's 6 cupcakes I made up right now that actually might get me excited to eat a cupcake:

1. Molten chocolate cupcake with hot gooey chocolate erupting out of every bite.
2. Custard enfused cupcakes. Basically you fill the top 20% of each tin with custard. The result is a dynamic cake which at the bottom is pure cake, at the top is pure custard, and in between is a glorious fusion of deliciousness.
3. Marble cupcakes: swirls are pretty to look at, and nothing is more PC than vanilla and chocolate dancing together in beautiful harmony.
4. Layered frosting. Why not have the peanut butter cupcake have a layer of chocolate frosting and peanut butter frosting. Seriously.
5. Bacon Cupcake. Yes bacon is annoyingly trendy at the moment but even that can't make me disown my favorite food. Any man who's girlfriend drags them to a cupcake shop will tell all their man friends about it. Follow the logic: Word of mouth = money, and bacon goes really well in mouths, therefore Bacon = money.
6. Ice cream injected cupcakes that are kept in the freezer.

So... lets make some dough.

The real money making idea of today is not actually upgrading the cupcake shop, it's a whole new beast: a cookie dough shop. The shop would sell cookie dough, and nothing more. Think about this. First of all i'd like to point out the low overhead cost. Cookie dough is raw, meaning that you would not need to get wrapped up in any of the costs of having a business with an oven. Also, people love cookies, especially warm ones out of the oven. But somehow the effort needed to make such a simple concoction has been deemed too great and tube cookie dough is all the rage. Tube cookie dough is bullshit. It's far inferior to home made and is from a fucking tube that provides no love, no fun conversations of how the cookies were made, and tons of weird preservatives that make it taste terrible. Plus, whenever you're at someone's house with fresh warm cookies there is a natural inclination to complement their recipe, which will lead into a wonderful conversation about the cute amazing new shop downtown. They'll become the hit at all the parties and potlucks. In addition, fun cookie dough treats would be sold to be eaten on the go. Cookie dough in a small cup and chocolate covered cookie dough for starters. Think about being a kid. You didn't make and get excited about cookies for the actual cookies. It was to eat the dough! Adults simply need to be reminded of their love. And they'll get addicted because the dough will bring back memories and feelings of childish glee. Also, cookie dough is so much more fun than cupcakes. Cupcakes are so limiting, like wearing a wool sweater to a dance club, while cookie dough is wild and free with no rules. Just think of all the fun amazing things you could add and all the fun amazing kinds of cookies there are in the world. Chocolate chip cookies alone could be offered in cakey, gooey, and giant for starters. You could rotate a new flavor in every Thursday and have fun seasonal favorites. Halloween could have a base cookie dough that you add your chopped up halloween candy to. Pumpkin for fall. Chocolate with rice krispies for the hell of it. Chocolate raspberry. Design flavors to match people's personalities i.e. the vin diesel cookie: vodka, hard heath, diced red hots (they'll be little explosions in your mouth like the big ones in all of his movies).  The ideas could continue on for a VERY long time. And none of the specials would ever be repeated. After 5 or so years of building a reputation you could package all the secret recipes into the ultimate cookie cook book complete with fun hip photographs beautifying the various stages of the cookie life cycle ending with a smiling child's mouth loaded with cookie crumbs (this is for aesthetic value. I'm assuming people don't want to look at chewed cookie dough).

So there is my ticket to fortune. I'm trusting no one steal it. Honor system. And if you do I want free dough for life. 

Random thoughts accumulated throughout the quarter

If there is artificial intelligence, what makes ours different? What sets our smarts apart from what we teach to computers? Intelligence is what the whole “what sets humans apart from animals” argument is based on. If we give animals artificial intelligence, does that make them equal? How do we know that ours isn’t artificial? Ultimately, it doesn’t matter if intelligence is artificial or “god-given” like ours. Computers are smarter. It’s funny that the origin of something is more important than its product and result.

“knowledge” was used in describing the future. It went from technology advancing at infinite speeds to knowledge increasing at infinite speeds. Knowledge? What can be known will start to change so rapidly that knowledge will only be relevant for a second or our realities will all be so different from one another’s that knowledge won’t exist because so many things will be true at once that there will be nothing to know. This assumes that everything that can be comprehended can or already is created, but doesn’t dreaming about something make it exist to a certain extent?

We may never die. But last night I did think about my mortality. That I will probably die from cancer made me sadder than just the concept of death. Because I fear pain? Because it’s a pre-mature death? I think the concept of not living as long as we could is scary but if fear is induced by the unknown, why is cancer scary at all? I will know exactly what is going on, what part of my body is failing, how long I have to live, and the amount of pain I will have to endure. In association with the other, I feel like it is the most direct interaction we will ever have with becoming the other. The slow death will change who I am and how I think, creating another being. But on plurk, Nanotext said something about us being able to betray our “selves”. I disagree with this. A self is so all-encompassing that everything is included in something that the self would do. Every human is capable of the same things. And to quote I heart Huckabees, “How am I not myself?”

There are a lot of problems in the world. The thing is that the people who are inventing the technology that “is” the future are thinking that their creations will solve the problems. Things like politics will still need to exist in the future as long as our lives are still “real”.  I believe that humans will always desire to commit crimes. Maybe if we become self-sufficient beings, money will become superfluous, eliminating theft and if our lives are entirely in fantasy, we will not need to be punished for killing or stealing.

The following two quotes are from that movie we watched in class about the future and technology.

“the first time we can imagine feeding everyone” we won’t need to! We’re going to become robots. We won’t need to fuck the earth over because our biological needs will be overcome.

“there’s a lot of room for mischief”

I highly doubt that people who are passionate enough about technology to design it that mischief is on their minds. Programmers don’t fuck around. They’re going to either design something to sabotage technology or advance it. Mischief will not be an issue.

Our bodies are not in a natural state. Much like the machines we use on a daily basis, our bodies are a part of what we have altered.

Earring, tattoo, fingernail polish, hair coloring, plucking eyebrows, iud, metal in joints, chemicals, hormones from milk, inhaled pollution, pigment from the sun, contact lenses, anti-depressants, lead, mercury, vitamin supplements that don’t really work, cigarettes. All lead to our ability to change who we are physically in effort to change who we are as people.

It will be incredible in the future to see what things end up in our bodies. Already I can’t list everything unnatural in my body, but this is because I don’t know.

Everyone looks at the world from such a macro view. Close up, all that matters is the moment. But it's hard to understand and draw conclusions from the present. It's interesting how we seemingly know more about life and the future than we do now. Even more than we know the past. 

We will become what created us. In the sense that time processed cells that became us, we are continuing this cycle. Eventually, humans will serve as the creators of life, controlling all species including our own.

Knowledge eludes all reason. Even with proof, something can never be known. Either we are incapable of understanding or the truth does not exist. It seems that there must be, if not truth, some constant in the universe that humans often label as truth. Or is individual perception the definition of the universe?

Shadows are cast almost every moment of our lives. In fact, in every occasion where we are not in absolute darkness, which I assume is rare for most people. But does the presence of shadows make us bigger? It makes sense that  my mass or being is larger when it is effecting more things. If I am solitary, am I less of a person? Is my shadow influencing my size? And if so, would it be my mass that’s affected? Or my essence? Discussing the issue of self, it is seemingly non-existent due to change, which is constant or represented by every action and thought I've ever made. Both are overwhelming. 

https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEiV_pyAA8TT80DJILvtOC_uYw-hS7Q8y9YQSiJ0J1nMAgw7Ug1Kc_mcGSpNSYQ-JHGMnJpex5cAKKAWoISDu1UprF6QwuyHmo_L80Kkt-PusSjze0GE9nHitb8oHhC2068tClLijN-9kqhT/s1600-h/yikes.jpg

I hate babies. More than any other object I can think of. They are bad in every possible way for example, size. Small in magnitude, especially when compared to the absolutely heinous amount of fluid they produce and large relative to what matters which is a birth canal. Babies have no mercy, demanding ruthlessly even when you physically cannot provide any more. They stipulate to no end things like  money, energy, food, swinging them around in circles, sleep, simplified language, and money. But my contempt is rooted in more than just babies themselves. Everyone surrounding them becomes a selfless, providing idiot insistent on talking in ridiculously high voices, dealing with absurd amounts of stress, giving in to primitive manipulation tactics, and being lied to constantly.

Yet babies are essential to life. However, without biological drive, no one would want them. People, without their rational being blinded by their biological clocks, would see that logically babies have far more flaws than benefits and having a baby is practically the definition of irrational behavior. But babies demonstrate the change that is happening to the human race. Even having them requires convincing one’s self that the extraordinarily occasional coo or giggle will make the suffering worth it. That we can force ourselves to think irrationally. Children are given night lights so that they do not fear the dark. Evidence of how humans are trying to deny their biological instincts. Obviously we are more vulnerable in the dark and it is a survival tactic to feel fear. Even the way babies are born has changed. Quote from my Anthropology teacher Allison Rollins: "babies are removed in other ways now." Not only has birth changed in it’s meaning, it no long exists. Removal is the new form of birth, much more efficient, orderly, and less biological.  

Being an organic being is totally inconvenient and we are avoiding having to face the fact that our bodies are a part of nature rather than something designed to cater to us. All of adult life is spent trying to deny our biology. Deodorant masks our stench, fans and air fresheners allow us to pretend we don't poop, Botox make it so we don't age, boogers are an embarrassment, bad breath is unacceptable, women in labor have a blanket over their legs, we close our eyes when we swap saliva, and wear sock so our feet don’t smell. Kids totally disrupt this false reality we have created. Not only do they disrupt it, they are more grotesque than we are so we have to stare the disgustingness of biology in the face. To someone used to sitting on the pedestal of general cleanliness, vomit covering the world comes as a shock. I think that being reminded of how gross bodies are is not helpful or necessary. Ultimately, children are equivalent to Ribofunk for exposure to disturbing liquids. The reason that we don't want to deal with the fact that our bodies are organic is because it's a reminder of our mortality. Not having to feel our greasy hair is motivation in itself, but with silky smooth locks comes the ability to pretend that we can control our bodies, thus controlling our lives. If I can moisturize my skin to make it softer, perhaps when the time comes I'll figure out a way to extend my life. Perhaps it's this logic that makes not only the care for but alteration of our bodies so important. 

This summer I will be Nannying for four kids in Madina. On paper anyway. Really, I will be raising the offspring of people who have more important things to do like run and marinate lamb in 60 dollar bottles of wine. In a culture where success and cleanliness and organization are the top priorities, children simply do not fit in.  Figuring out how to deal with children (that's what they are; something to be dealt with) is intimidating and totally unstructured. People just punch 'em out and pray. Literally, there is no recommended method for raising kids. Don't beat them? Racking my brain, that is the only common knowledge about kids that I can think of. The reason that raising children is such a daunting task is because our priorities are so much higher. As hunter-gatherers, human success was survival. Now there are thousands of ways to assess success from self-esteem to morals to relationships to outlook. There is no way to raise a child completely successfully. 

The Diamond Age is about children, specifically a little girl, but the underlying theme seems to be that she just wants to be loved. But it is not enough to love a child. And you can't because it seems that their main goal in life is to make it difficult for you to do so. The young girl's book is an effort to standardize the raising of a child. In the future, it's possible the a simulation program will be available for the perfect childhood. The product will be children with high self-esteem, good money management, the ability to communicate, and no desire to kill anything. The book talks about pain, but not in depth. It's simply addressed and not explained. The assumption that all children experience enough pain is the cause of this. But is some pain required to grow up?  Some awkward mistakes necessary for genuine character to develop? And when would the simulation stop? Producing top-notch adults, the world would be a better place, right? Politics will surely sabotage this ultimately beneficial plan in the way that I see Madina being torn apart now. No one has more authority than anyone else to say what's the best parenting technique. Is television on Sunday mornings teaching children to be inactive? Should cookies be given at lunch or dinner if at all? Size zero women all over Madina not only cannot agree, but are fuming over other's methods and fear that a single glimpse of another lifestyle will ruin everything they've done thus far. 

I think the thing that really gets me about children is that they have to live abridged lives. It is unhealthy for them to see brutal violence, even if it's real. Sex cannot be addressed until 8th grade, and adults hide their mistakes from children. All of this in effort to give them the best. But if you cannot, why does hiding it from them equate to a solution? I want to forget that I sweat and focus on having full experiences and children have the opposite effect on one's life. Other than selfishness, specifically the desire to live for myself and in the way that I want, I don't want to deal with children because of the shakiness and uncertainty surrounding what's healthy for a child, the lack of knowledge about the effects of how children are treated, and the idea of being responsible for someone else's development. With no real guide other than unsupported opinions and gut feelings, raising children is all about the luck of the draw and I'm not going to risk getting the short stick.  

The theme of Burning Man 2009 is evolution; perfect for the present situation we as humans have ourselves in, where progression and drastic change seem to be trends that no aspect of life escapes. Bodies, current issues, money, lifestyle, social interactions, and the definition of life all seem on the cusp of becoming completely reinvented, but what does that mean for us now? At the beginning of my adult life, I'm wondering how I am to predict and prepare for this future that can only be speculated about? This situation has been present throughout time. Everyone says that technology is changing the world, but all that I see people's constant need to be adults, struggle for financial stability, and breed. Like all the other generations, I think that my life will be different. Technology is my safety net to insure my "success" in life. If any mistakes are made, a robot will help me fix it. Medical advances are the most prevalent example of this, fixing me if an arm is broken or liver over stressed. Yet little evidence of this amazing future I expect exist. Robots are not a prevalent part of my life and to expect that they will be is naive. Technology isn't just going to appear, it will grow. From this, I know that I won't be saved by robots, but I feel a certain hope and comfort knowing that technology will and already has made my life easier. I'm just excited to reap more benefits. Which is what's so fascinating about the idea of robots. They give endlessly. All we have to do is make them and we will never stop receiving the benefits that they provide. Which goes against the rules of life that have been learned. That you have to work for what you have and money doesn't grow on trees and there is some form of karma that exists. Our entirely selfish use of something seems to fundamentally weaken morals. I feel like a defining feature of a jerk is someone who gets what they don't deserve and/or doesn't appreciate it. Everyone will possess this trait. I feel it now even with my laptop and min-fridge. This feeling of not deserving the privileges that technology provides. I in no way contributed to the making of these technologies. Perhaps in the future everyone will have jobs producing new robots and electronics and that lurking feeling of undeserving will vanish. But will our ignorance toward whether or not we deserve the help we will receive leak into other aspects of life? Will kindness no longer be necessary? Kindness is a tool to get what we want and what will be the point of social interaction if we have all that we desire? Also, in class we talked about the concept that what information and experience and stimulation is only useful if there is a self to apply it to.  I completely agree with this and believe that it will sculpt what we do with our opportunities to design ourselves in the future. We will want to live someone else’s life, but while maintaining our own perspective.The theme of Burning Man 2009 is evolution; perfect for the present situation we as humans have ourselves in, where progression and drastic change seem to be trends that no aspect of life escapes. Bodies, current issues, money, lifestyle, social interactions, and the definition of life all seem on the cusp of becoming completely reinvented, but what does that mean for us now? At the beginning of my adult life, I'm wondering how I am to predict and prepare for this future that can only be speculated about? This situation has been present throughout time. Everyone says that technology is changing the world, but all that I see people's constant need to be adults, struggle for financial stability, and breed. Like all the other generations, I think that my life will be different. Technology is my safety net to insure my "success" in life. If any mistakes are made, a robot will help me fix it. Medical advances are the most prevalent example of this, fixing me if an arm is broken or liver over stressed. Yet little evidence of this amazing future I expect exist. Robots are not a prevalent part of my life and to expect that they will be is naive. Technology isn't just going to appear, it will grow. From this, I know that I won't be saved by robots, but I feel a certain hope and comfort knowing that technology will and already has made my life easier. I'm just excited to reap more benefits. Which is what's so fascinating about the idea of robots. They give endlessly. All we have to do is make them and we will never stop receiving the benefits that they provide. Which goes against the rules of life that have been learned. That you have to work for what you have and money doesn't grow on trees and there is some form of karma that exists. Our entirely selfish use of something seems to fundamentally weaken morals. I feel like a defining feature of a jerk is someone who gets what they don't deserve and/or doesn't appreciate it. Everyone will possess this trait. I feel it now even with my laptop and min-fridge. This feeling of not deserving the privileges that technology provides. I in no way contributed to the making of these technologies. Perhaps in the future everyone will have jobs producing new robots and electronics and that lurking feeling of undeserving will vanish. But will our ignorance toward whether or not we deserve the help we will receive leak into other aspects of life? Will kindness no longer be necessary? Kindness is a tool to get what we want and what will be the point of social interaction if we have all that we desire? Also, in class we talked about the concept that what information and experience and stimulation is only useful if there is a self to apply it to.  I completely agree with this and believe that it will sculpt what we do with our opportunities to design ourselves in the future. We will want to live someone else’s life, but while maintaining our own perspective. And I won't live to find out if this is possible. 

Evolution has moved beyond humans. Surpassing natural evolution, we are entering a state of evoked evolution where control is in our hands (or whatever we replace them with). I remember the argument surrounding artificial intelligence discussing whether or not the power to control life is divine. I haven't come across this argument in over ten years. I am probably reading the wrong texts but it seems that the world has taken on a "why not?" stance about technology. If things can be made  better, there is no reason beyond a slight tinge of uncertainty in the back of our heads to continue on. But what does this mean for human life? My whole life is floating on extreme privilege. And I know the future. I am going to continue to live in extreme privilege, do some stupid self-exploring/ unnecessarily dramatic personal shit, buy stuff, probably punch a couple kids out, think that I'm happy, and die. If reality is so malleable, why does everyone end up doing this? Is it just a lingering trend? I am noticing that belief and religion are being regarded as irrational. However, my view of the world is so limited. Everyone's is. This is why we are so detached from the moment. Because we cannot know what is going on and in order to avoid facing this truth, we live in the past or in the future. Evolution will not save us from this. We will maintain our illusion of what reality is. Essentially, I don't believe that humans can change or evolve out of ignorance and inability to understand the truth. Perhaps we will create a reality that we finally can understand, but it will be reality that will have to change for  us. 

 

A Waste of Time

 Today was a serious holiday. 4:20 is a date that many folks mark on their calendars (if they even have them) and eagerly await. Especially in the world of college students, the importance of 4:20 is greatly exaggerated to perhaps compete with birthdays and Halloween. Providing an easy connection to other people, getting high also connects people to the world in a way that is fake, but new. Any new experience fosters learning and an altered state of mind sometime works wonders for new interactions with old ideas and understandings of how everything interacts. Love is a many splendid thing. But, (and I don't think that seriously considering what Tony Prichard says and possibly using it as an outline is such a ridiculous thing) apparently it's just two. Sentiment is something entirely made up. Being caught up in love or some premature form of it is very easy, but also very easy to avoid. Earlier today, I had a discussion about the fact that guilt is not real but it was difficult to think of a positive counter to this, and infatuation is the perfect example. I am always wanting to say that what is real anything that we cannot control. It seems that anything we can control is quickly morphed from its original state to something "bigger and better" or more enjoyable or beneficial. The ideas that "real" is defined by control includes many emotions, excludes life itself, includes tigers, excludes tigers, includes state of mind, excludes radios. This is a vague, time consuming system that doesn't guarantee a decisive conclusion. Sex is physical gratification and many a splendid thing. I feel like it is a funny thing that it is so tied into the complex we think of as love. Biologically, most mammals, including humans, are made to practice polygamy. Love cannot be defined which leads to all of the crazy extreme things associated with it. And to chick flicks, and to Disney movies, and to assumptions and overcommitment and loss of identity and heartbreak. Yet all of these things are illusions. I think that love is not real in the sense that we can control it. Interpreting a relationship as love is what defines it. Not what the actual relationship is like. If anything is an example of current mythology, it is love. But it provokes in me thoughts about alterity and my altered state of being. Shadows are discussed somewhere in the beginning of Radical Alterity and are, very much like love, a tangible example of something that may or may not make us an other and may or may not be an other. Is my shadow part of me and does it make me bigger? It seems that affecting my environment would change my size. 

The guy in The Diamond Age feels no love. Just ego that he's constantly striving for. Love is a myth that lives on from the past in the form of sex and simulated caring, shown by bringing the occasional gift to your woman, motivate by the desire to appear in love. What's interesting is that love can factually exclude ego but seems to include all else. In a completely dark room, completely silent, but in love, would I as a being be larger than I would be without love? Interaction with your environment is the only tangible thing that results from life. Creation, thoughts, and emotions are all a result of where and when life occurs and the world that we exist in now is interpreted in so many ways, that I am also making the world bigger in time and in effect. Every experience I have adds to Earth's repertoire and increases its size. What can be questioned today is whether or not there is a more efficient, super way of experiencing the earth that increases the size of yourself and the world.  Perhaps on this day, people are having twice the experience they would have if sober. Walking on a path sober, I would interpret that experience as closely to reality as I could. Strolling when high, am I not still having that real experience I would have had before, but experiencing it twice? Once in my body in reality, once in my altered interpretation of it. This is always applicable due to the lapse in time created by our brain's inability to interpret things exactly when they happen. (I just referred to all of man kind having a collective brain. Somehow I feel that is very wrong). But inebriation brings it even more in focus that our experiences are nothing like reality. 

Prompted by The Invention of Morel

The main character of The Invention of Morel chooses the wrong spot to be what seems like every time he tries to hide. His inability to fully process decision beyond what's convenient at the moment reveals that in order to make good decisions, some insight must be had. In moments of panic, he hides. What does this say about humans? I think that his actions comment on how human interpretation of situations when in fear are absolutely contradicting to the normal reaction which is to manipulate the environment until it is desirable. But, again, when in fear, behavior is completely changed. The reality of the example form the book is that no place would be safe for the character since the environment around him is created by himself.  He is not safe because he is not allowing himself to be. Also, safety is a subjective emotion anyway and on top of that choice, having  the choice of having a subjective reality makes the concept that he regrets where he hides every time very complex and perplexing. 

"How much more advanced they were than we!" - page 22 of the Invention of Morel

In order to believe this quote, the whole concept of what is advanced needs to be fully challenged. Factually, with time humans become more advanced, making discoveries allowing us to create and understand things that prior generations could not. This quote is in reference to cavemen's ability to light fires without matches. This comments on technology in a way that does not believe that advancement is inherently good. If matches didn't exist, the character would be practiced at rubbing two sticks together, benefiting him in is desperate situation. It is so interesting that this quote is in the reading for this class because it is completely opposite to what I thought was a ubiquitous message coming from everything discussed and addressed in class. That message being that technology is expanding reality, which is good. However, slightly, tweaked, this message still applies if it is simplified to say that technology is simply changing reality. 

"Enduring discomfort, even risking their lives, in attempt to be original." - page 24

The need to be original has become a hopeless endeavor that humans as robots need to learn to abandon. Why is it so difficult to accept a group mentality about everything? Individuality and the strive for it are desired because it is written in our genes and imprinted in our minds through societal views stating that individuality is needed to feel freedom. This is the reason that it is so difficult to deny and resist originality. The question then brought up regards the fact that every human is undeniably unique because they have had a truly unique experience. Though no action has been original, the combination of life experiences sets every human apart from one another. This truth is irrelevant. Though each person has had their own custom experience, it is not relevant because, as robots, humans desire the same things and feel the same emotions. If an emotion is felt, is it the same for each person? What if a different event prompts the same emotion? Is it the same experience to feel that emotion? Unlike the self, I think that emotions need to be addressed as elemental and constant. Sadness over death and spilled juice is the same emotion. We are unique in our combination of experiences, which is true simultaneously with the fact that it doesn't matter. Under the latter view, the thought that an emotion is tangible and unchanging despite its source is supported. We are already robots, but are not able to succumb to this fact because of our need for individuality. However, does our denial change anything? If we do not identify as robots, does that mean we are not? If the answer is no, the idea that we make our own realities cannot be justified and I support the latter, especially in the context of all of the texts we're discussing. The only way to be able to make both ideas work together is to differentiate between reality and personal reality. We make our own realities as individuals, but there is a collective truth that is present despite what individuals believe. If people ever do abandon uniqueness and succumb to group mentality, this will still be true, only simplified, for fewer interpretation will be taken on reality. 

The main character's opinion of the woman he loves supports my argument that the self is not constant. On one page, he hates the girl who watches the sunset. Then he loves and desires for her again. Then he wants to see her more than he can handle. But basic indecision does not prove the point that the main character can because of his reality. It is his irrationality and our knowledge as readers that he believes everything that he feels so whole heartedly and deeply that allows us to feel safe in the assumption that he is truly and freely himself. One can trust that he does not lie because his reality is wild enough that the truth is all that he can handle, no matter how unreal the truth is. Assuming this allows the reader to draw the conclusion that his feelings are directly from the self and that the inconsistency in his emotions reflect the state of the self. Defined as "personal interest" or "a person's nature", self is obviously not constant. The character's personal interest is changing all the time, deciding to abandon hope, then deciding to be proactive and back again. All of these act in on basic self-interest which is personal happiness and benefit, but when assessed more specifically, nothing is constant except for the self's inability to remain unvarying.