I have now watched Episode 22 "Restless" of Series 4 of Buffy the Vampire Slayer. I cannot help feeling that I would have been better prepared had I followed the programme from the beginning. Clearly the main characters have already been created and interacted as Series 4 begins with Buffy's arrival at College on her first day. She is subject to all the fears and concerns that arise from her life experiences up to the point at which the series begins and so her behaviour as shown to us presumably is consistent with that shown/developed in Series 1 - 3. Not having seen any of these leaves the viewer struggling to understand why she is behaving as she is at this time. This comment is also true of the other main characters who we meet and have, in this episode, experience of their dreams. At times I felt that I was in a similar dream to Xander who is suddenly faced with his questions being answered in French, a language he does not understand, nor does he understand why the sudden switch to French has occurred.
The main component of the episode is the dreams the four main characters. Following a very busy time slaying evil things they are tired but feel too 'wired' to sleep so they agree to spend the night watching videos but fall asleep anyway. I will assume that the readers of this blog will know who the characters are and the role they play. If not there is a great deal of information on the Internet both in Wikpaedia and more specifically at http://www.buffyguide.com.
Willow's dream opens with Tara lying semi-naked on a bed whilst Willow paints Hymn to Aphrodite on her back. As with all dreams there is no logical sequence to what we see and we next see Willow at College believing that she is about to attend the first lesson of her Drama class. Instead she finds herself on stage with her fellow students, who are all in costume, about to present a version of Death of a Salesman. Willow who sees herself as not dressed for the role (whatever it is) is told that everyone likes her costume although, to her, she is in her everyday clothes. To add to her anxiety Buffy tells her that all her family are out front looking forward to her appearance on stage. At one point she finds herself alone between two sets of red stage curtains unable to find her way out. We next find her in the classroom about to read a paper to the class. She is wearing the same clothes as in the theatre part of the dream but Buffy strips them off leaving Willow standing in front of the class in the same clothes she wore Episode 1 of the series [ Note - Of course I was unaware of this or how she saw herself at that time]. To add to her misery Oz, her former boyfriend, and Tara, her current girlfriend flirt with each other. The dream ends with Willow being attacked by the first slayer.
The opening scene suggests that Willow has sexual feelings for Tara but has to partially suppress them because of the probable response from her family and others or her own guilt about having such feelings. She resorts to the apparently more innocent pastime of painting a love poem on her back. Interestingly there is another scene in the dream of Xander where the sexual relationship is more explicit but in this case we have to take cognizance of the fact that it is part of Xander's fantasy. The scene in the theatre is a reflection of Willow's anxieties about her being at College and not being able to keep up with her fellow students nor receive their approval. It is important to her to be accepted by the 'others' and to show them that she is no longer the girl the viewers saw in the first episodes. Graphically this is portrayed in the scene when Buffy strips her clothes off to reveal the same costume worn in an earlier part of her life.
We are also offered a glimpse of her relationship with her family whom she cannot see but are the cause of some anxiety. There is one other element of the dream and that is the red curtains in which Willow is trapped. They can be interpreted as a comfort blanket that keeps her hidden from the judgemental looks she feels are always upon her. Equally they could be seen as a metaphor for the type of relationship she has/wants with Tara - to find herself buried in the most private parts of the woman she desires.
Xander's dream, again a series of disjointed scenes, begins with him apparently waking and then excusing himself to go to the bathroom. On the way he meets Willow's mother whose behaviour is suggestive of a wish for a sexual encounter with Xander. He passes up on the immediate opportunity but does indicate a desire to return once he has been to the bathroom. Once in the bathroom he is conscious that he is not alone and on looking round sees that he is being observed by a group in white coats ready to take notes. He excuses himself saying that he will find another bathroom but on going through a door into what he thought was a bathroom he finds himself in a playground where he sees Buffy, Giles and Spike. He is told by Giles that Spike is to be trained as a Watcher. Buffy is seen playing in a sandbox. We then switch to an ice-cream truck where Xander finds Anya, Willow and Tara. The latter two are heavily made up and in skimpy clothing and are in a suggestive embrace. They invite Xander to join them but on his way he finds himself in the basement in his house. The dream sequence then returns him to the University where he seeks advice from Giles about what is happening only to be answered in French a language he does not understand. Constantly throughout the dream sequences he finds himself in the basement of his house.
It does not take a genius to work out the sexual nature of the early part of his dream. The attempted seduction by Buffy's mother is taken to be a metaphor for his desire as a child to have sex with his mother, a la Freud, whilst the behaviour of Willow and Tara in the Ice Cream van serves to offer two fantasies that men find sexually arousing - the wish to see two women in the sexual act and to watch this in a place that should be free of all such behaviour. The latter fantasy is the 'innocence' of the ice cream van created by its link with the young. However his main anxiety and probably the cause of the constant return to the basement of his house is his feelings of inferiority as he has not been as successful as his friends - for example he is not attending college. The French language sequence is a metaphor for his fear that he will no longer be able to understand his friends as they become more and more immersed in College life.
Giles dream revolves around his desire to continue to mentor Buffy and the contra-desire to let her make her own way as a Slayer. His feelings are further complicated by the presence of his girl friend who is first seen with an empty pushchair suggesting an unfulfilled desire to have children. It is not clear whether this is a desire felt by Giles. Buffy appears in his dream as a child, dressed as such and having pigtails. She is attempting to throw a ball at a mock vampire at a fairground but is unable to hit the vampire. Giles offers advice about keeping her arm straight ( there is obvious stereotyping in this part of the dream (it is usually more subtle) because there is a belief that females cannot throw a ball straight and that in some unspecified way it is a by product of being female) and she is successful. Through this sequence we can see evidence of Giles still wishing to guide Buffy We switch to a night club where Giles uses singing to explain why the group are being attacked - apparently he has always wanted to be a musician. The final sequence is him tracing the wiring from the sound system, that has failed, back stage only to find an unfathomable tangle of wires. As he looks in dismay at the task he faces the stalker catches and scalps him.
Giles dream is offered as evidence of the conflicts in his life and the difficulties of reconciling his feelings toward Buffy and his feelings towards his girlfriend. The appearance of Buffy as a child/adult figure exemplifies his ambiguous feelings towards her. His desire to protect is possibly a manifestation of his feelings about his own adequacies and the confirmation he receives from being seen as a father figure by Buffy whilst at the same time possibly avoiding a stable relationship with his girl friend.
Buffy's dream centres around her feelings about the cost of being a Slayer. The dream sequences are confusing with the dream starting with Buffy being woken by Anya in her room at College and then she is seen in her room at home with Tara whose message is not easy to understand. She is then at the University where she finds her mother living inside a wall. We switch to the next sequence where she meets Riley and Adam (now restored to human form) plotting domination on a world wide scale. The three come under attack from demons to which Riley and Adam respond by deciding to build a fort made of pillows. Buffy finds her weapons bag only to find it full of mud which she smears on her face mimicking the first slayer's appearance. We then find her in the desert facing the First Slayer and a fight ensues that continues back in Buffy's room where her friends lie dying. Buffy eventually works out that she can simply stop the fight by the simple act of ignoring the First Slayer who responds by disappearing. The dreams end when everyone wakes up none the worse for their experiences.
The underlying theme of Buffy's dream is her feelings of isolation (the desert scene) that she sees as an inevitable part of being a Slayer. Her encounter with Riley expresses her fears of the effect Riley's work with the military and the effect this will have on their relationship and her ability as a slayer. The sequence with her mother inside the wall is evidence of her feelings towards her mother and the barrier that is a constant part of their relationship. Her realisation about the way to defeat the first slayer is less easy to interpret and is something of an anti-climax. Presumably it leaves open the opportunity for another series on Television.
One element that is difficult to place is the man who constantly appears with cheese slices that he presents in a variety of ways. His most cryptic comment is "I wear the cheese it does not wear me". He has placed the slices around his body. The statement is never challenged although Lacan would probably have a field day with the argument asking how we decide whether in one sense the cheese is wearing the man. A similar incident occurs when Anya is attempting to be a stand up comic at the Club where Giles sings. She starts a tale, somewhat erratically, with talking about a man wearing a duck on his head. We are not offered the rest of the story line until we hear the punch line "Why is this man stuck to my ass?" We have moved from the man wearing the duck to the duck wearing the man. I have no idea what this means other than we make assumptions about appearances based on our experience and we may actually be interpreting it totally the wrong way round.
Wednesday 25 April 2012
Monday 23 April 2012
A few random thoughts
Whilst reading through Do Androids Dream of Electronic Sheep some passages raised questions in my mind that were not directly relevant to the required work but nevertheless were of interest to me. If you like this blog is one of self-indulgence.
It will be recalled that in the previous blog reference was made to the existence of so-called specials who had been judged as insufficiently intelligent to qualify for transfer to colonies on other planets. In terms of the book "Once pegged as special, a citizen, even if accepting sterilization, dropped out of history. He ceased in effect, to be part of mankind. (Location 341 Do Androids Dream of Electric Sheep, Philip K Dick Orion Books ebook 2010 by Gollancz). This raised the question in my mind - Is the Gaze relevant to all people? In terms of the States efforts in the book to persuade those remaining on Earth to emigrate the posters, TV and other communications they were aimed at those eligible for transfer, the 'specials' did not 'exist'. Yet, although their reactions would be different, the Gaze would generate a reaction, in this case one of rejection and isolation. Most had sufficient understanding to realise that in some way they had been classified as different and inferior.
The more general question raised, for me, was there a minimum level of understanding required for there to be a reaction to a Gaze. If there is no understanding of the object does it lose its power to bring forth a response in those who 'see' it? If I am in a foreign Country whose writing is of say Arabic script that I cannot understand any poster would lose its impact and I may simply choose to ignore it. However if I am looking for a specific location and all signs are in the same script all signs would cause me anxiety because of my need to understand. It could be argued that the existence of the Gaze is solely the property of the subject and not of the object so that anything could have triggered Lacan's feelings of anxiety and guilt because they were already part of his sub-concious feelings about his favoured position compared with the fisherman with whom he was sharing a boat.
"As Isidore knocked on the apartment door the television died immediately into non-being. It had not merely become silent, it had stopped existing, scared into its grave by his knock" (Ibid Location 981)
It is an interesting issue to consider whether a television becomes non-existent when it is switched off. Evidently the box and screen will still be there but is it a television? Is there not a need for it to be broadcasting to be a television? Consider when a person dies. They, as a person, cease to exist but there body remains for a measurable period of time.
Later in the book one of the androids realises it will shortly be 'retired' (destroyed). There is a reaction - her eyes faded and the colour dimmed from her face, leaving it cadaverous, as if already starting to decay -(ibid Locn 2016). Evidently the android is aware of its own existence i.e. 'self'. Yet, we are told the thing that distinguishes androids is there lack of empathy. Can you have awareness of self if you are non-empathetic? We recognise feelings in others through empathy and we become aware of the same feelings in ourselves and by judging the reaction of others we learn to react appropriately (most behaviour is learned). In this case there is a human reaction to the awareness of the closeness of death but how has the android learnt this behaviour if it is not empathetic. There are examples throughout the book where androids show empathy in the writing.
"Rachel [an android] said "Or we could live in sin, except that I'm not alive" (Ibid Locn 3025). Decker replies that legally 'she' is not but because she is an organic being and not made out of electronic wizardry she is alive. It raises the question of what it means to be alive. Who decides? Death has to be certified by doctors who have knowledge of the deceased. Up until that point the person is not legally dead even if the body is well into decay and it is clear that death occurred some time prior to discovery. Death and by definition life is a decision that would appear to lie with the State. We are a legal entity that at some time is seen as 'alive' and at another time 'dead'. I wonder what we are between being alive and the state recognising that we are dead.
One passage that has a Kafkaesque quality is when Isidore becomes aware of the state of the world in which he lives. He touches the wall only for his hand to break through the surface; he sits only for the chair to collapse and a cup disintegrates before his eyes. He is facd with another reality or perhaps reality itself. Whatever it is that has kept him from seeing this reality has gone and he is left in a world that has already beyond that of decay. (Ibid Locn 3258) He has no way of knowing whether he has in some way moved into a new reality or that he has always lived there and had failed to see it.
Towards the end Decker when asked whether something is true responds by saying "Everything is true. Everything that anybody has thought" (Ibid Locn 3467). If this is the case then there is no such thing as reality because two people can hold views that are diametrically opposed and could not exist in one reality. For this situation to exist there must be an infinite number of realities none of which is superior or more likely than any other.
It will be recalled that in the previous blog reference was made to the existence of so-called specials who had been judged as insufficiently intelligent to qualify for transfer to colonies on other planets. In terms of the book "Once pegged as special, a citizen, even if accepting sterilization, dropped out of history. He ceased in effect, to be part of mankind. (Location 341 Do Androids Dream of Electric Sheep, Philip K Dick Orion Books ebook 2010 by Gollancz). This raised the question in my mind - Is the Gaze relevant to all people? In terms of the States efforts in the book to persuade those remaining on Earth to emigrate the posters, TV and other communications they were aimed at those eligible for transfer, the 'specials' did not 'exist'. Yet, although their reactions would be different, the Gaze would generate a reaction, in this case one of rejection and isolation. Most had sufficient understanding to realise that in some way they had been classified as different and inferior.
The more general question raised, for me, was there a minimum level of understanding required for there to be a reaction to a Gaze. If there is no understanding of the object does it lose its power to bring forth a response in those who 'see' it? If I am in a foreign Country whose writing is of say Arabic script that I cannot understand any poster would lose its impact and I may simply choose to ignore it. However if I am looking for a specific location and all signs are in the same script all signs would cause me anxiety because of my need to understand. It could be argued that the existence of the Gaze is solely the property of the subject and not of the object so that anything could have triggered Lacan's feelings of anxiety and guilt because they were already part of his sub-concious feelings about his favoured position compared with the fisherman with whom he was sharing a boat.
"As Isidore knocked on the apartment door the television died immediately into non-being. It had not merely become silent, it had stopped existing, scared into its grave by his knock" (Ibid Location 981)
It is an interesting issue to consider whether a television becomes non-existent when it is switched off. Evidently the box and screen will still be there but is it a television? Is there not a need for it to be broadcasting to be a television? Consider when a person dies. They, as a person, cease to exist but there body remains for a measurable period of time.
Later in the book one of the androids realises it will shortly be 'retired' (destroyed). There is a reaction - her eyes faded and the colour dimmed from her face, leaving it cadaverous, as if already starting to decay -(ibid Locn 2016). Evidently the android is aware of its own existence i.e. 'self'. Yet, we are told the thing that distinguishes androids is there lack of empathy. Can you have awareness of self if you are non-empathetic? We recognise feelings in others through empathy and we become aware of the same feelings in ourselves and by judging the reaction of others we learn to react appropriately (most behaviour is learned). In this case there is a human reaction to the awareness of the closeness of death but how has the android learnt this behaviour if it is not empathetic. There are examples throughout the book where androids show empathy in the writing.
"Rachel [an android] said "Or we could live in sin, except that I'm not alive" (Ibid Locn 3025). Decker replies that legally 'she' is not but because she is an organic being and not made out of electronic wizardry she is alive. It raises the question of what it means to be alive. Who decides? Death has to be certified by doctors who have knowledge of the deceased. Up until that point the person is not legally dead even if the body is well into decay and it is clear that death occurred some time prior to discovery. Death and by definition life is a decision that would appear to lie with the State. We are a legal entity that at some time is seen as 'alive' and at another time 'dead'. I wonder what we are between being alive and the state recognising that we are dead.
One passage that has a Kafkaesque quality is when Isidore becomes aware of the state of the world in which he lives. He touches the wall only for his hand to break through the surface; he sits only for the chair to collapse and a cup disintegrates before his eyes. He is facd with another reality or perhaps reality itself. Whatever it is that has kept him from seeing this reality has gone and he is left in a world that has already beyond that of decay. (Ibid Locn 3258) He has no way of knowing whether he has in some way moved into a new reality or that he has always lived there and had failed to see it.
Towards the end Decker when asked whether something is true responds by saying "Everything is true. Everything that anybody has thought" (Ibid Locn 3467). If this is the case then there is no such thing as reality because two people can hold views that are diametrically opposed and could not exist in one reality. For this situation to exist there must be an infinite number of realities none of which is superior or more likely than any other.
Sunday 22 April 2012
Being and its semblance
We are asked to consider examples of 'gaze' . I thought that I would use the book "Do Androids Dream of Electric Sheep" [Philip K Dick 1968. First published in Great Britain in 1999 by Millennium. Edition used eBook Gollancz 2010 eISBN:9780575097933 - note ebooks do not use page numbers using 'locations' instead]. The film Blade Runner is based on this book.
In my background research for this blog I came across a paper written by Henry Krips Professor of Cultural Studies "The Politics of the Gaze: Foucault, Lacan and Zizek" that can be found at http://www.cultureunbound.ep.liu.se/v2/a06/cu10v2a6.pdf. Commenting on the work of Joan Copjec he quotes from her work Read my Desire: Lacan Against the Historicists, Harvard MIT Press 1994 in which she recounts an autobiographical story told by Lacan:
One day, I was on a small boat with a few people......an individual known as Petit-Jean..pointed out to me something floating on the surface of the waves. It was a small can, a sardine can...It glittered in the sun. And Petit-Jeansaid to me - Do you see that can? Do you see it? Well it doesn't see you? [Copjec 1994 30-31]
The important part of this story is the response of Lacan who supposedly felt a great deal of anxiety that was seated in his feelings about his privileged position in relation to his hosts which Lacan internalizes as him being externally scrutinised by some unknown thing that was the cause of his anxiety. (My skepticism about the validity of this story arises from Lacan's future behaviour where he frequently changes his previously stated beliefs and assigns different meanings to terms). Lacan describes the gaze in The Four Fundamental Concepts of Psychoanalysis Jacques-Alain Miller (ed) Alan Sheridan (trans) New York Norton 1981
[It] is not a seen gaze [that is it is not an eye that I see looking at me] but a gaze imagined by me in the field of the Other..the sound of rustling leaves....a footstep heard in a corridor.....the other surprises him, the subject, as entirely hidden gaze (p82-84).
It is this description that I have used as what the 'gaze' means in finding examples in the book "Do Androids Dream of Electric Sheep". For the purpose of this analysis the two main characters are Decker -the Bounty Hunter and Isidore - a 'special' (a 'special' is someone who has failed to meet the target IQ score that all who wish to be transferred from Earth must achieve). Reference will be made to the androids who are the other main element in the story but by definition they are all the same but are assigned slightly different characteristics for the purpose of the story.
As in the present day world, television is a major source of communication. For many it is the blind eye in the corner of the room but which can, both on and off, generate a whole gamut of feelings in us. Isidore 'owns' a set that can only receive one channel and that channel is owned by the government. It broadcasts for 17 hours a day a programme fronted by a presenter known as Buster Friendly who prostelyses the views of the government throughout the programme. It is in many ways the ultimate example of the gaze - it is an object that is unaware of our presence, has no knowledge of the feelings it generates and yet switched off , by its very silence, causes us anxiety.
After the world war that reduced the planet to rubble and decay most of the population were transferred to colonies on other planets - primarily Mars. Although those deemed unworthy of transfer had to remain on Earth there remained others who had refused to transfer despite being eligible. These people were bombarded with poster and TV ads and junk mail with the exhortation "Emigrate or degenerate". One is reminded of the blimp in the film. Further encouragement to leave Earth is the promise of the gift of an android created to the person's design with the promise that it would help 'duplicate the halcyon days of the pre-Civil War Southern states.
As stated above the gaze is "not a seen gaze but a gaze imagined by me in the field of the other" Reference is made to the rustling of the leaves. Having switched off the television Isidore is struck by the all pervading silence. Not only was he conscious of the silence, hearing nothing, but he also experienced it as having a life, that it was Alive. Silence was part of or was the Other in Isidore's world. It does not even have to have uncertain sounds such as a footstep heard elsewhere in the building to generate a sense of anxiety and of separation from others. In a later part of the book we are told of Isidore sudden awareness of the necessity of being with others in order to live. Although prior to the arrival of the androids he was able to live alone in the huge apartment block now he needed there presence to exist as a person.
Decker, the Bounty Hunter, in negotiating for the ownership of an owl (virtually all wild life had died out) becomes aware that under the conditions of the agreement he would become the hunted. He was aware that thinking that you are being stalked, whether true or not, has a marked effect upon the person. Here we have the gaze that is created by the fears or anxieties of the person who may never see his stalker. It is the belief that there is one that is the crucial factor.
An everyday object such as a pair of nail scissors can go 'unnoticed' for years. It is only when they are connected with the possibility of mutilation (in the book a spider found by Isidore is targeted by an android who is threatening to remove four of its legs) that anxieties are roused. There is a similarity with the sardine can in Lacan's story.
Although very few people have the experience of being shown a police officer's warrant card most have seen an officer in uniform. In the first case very few of us would challenge the validity of the card and would respond to any questions asked or directions given. In the latter case we would respond even when the Officer is some distance away even if we are innocent of any misdemeanour. Both the card and the uniform are 'objects' that cause some anxiety or tension in us. In the book Decker frequently shows his id card and in turn is shown someone elses. Both humans and androids behave in predictable albeit slightly different ways.
The book also raised a number of other interesting questions and I hope to 'think' about them in a future blog.
In my background research for this blog I came across a paper written by Henry Krips Professor of Cultural Studies "The Politics of the Gaze: Foucault, Lacan and Zizek" that can be found at http://www.cultureunbound.ep.liu.se/v2/a06/cu10v2a6.pdf. Commenting on the work of Joan Copjec he quotes from her work Read my Desire: Lacan Against the Historicists, Harvard MIT Press 1994 in which she recounts an autobiographical story told by Lacan:
One day, I was on a small boat with a few people......an individual known as Petit-Jean..pointed out to me something floating on the surface of the waves. It was a small can, a sardine can...It glittered in the sun. And Petit-Jeansaid to me - Do you see that can? Do you see it? Well it doesn't see you? [Copjec 1994 30-31]
The important part of this story is the response of Lacan who supposedly felt a great deal of anxiety that was seated in his feelings about his privileged position in relation to his hosts which Lacan internalizes as him being externally scrutinised by some unknown thing that was the cause of his anxiety. (My skepticism about the validity of this story arises from Lacan's future behaviour where he frequently changes his previously stated beliefs and assigns different meanings to terms). Lacan describes the gaze in The Four Fundamental Concepts of Psychoanalysis Jacques-Alain Miller (ed) Alan Sheridan (trans) New York Norton 1981
[It] is not a seen gaze [that is it is not an eye that I see looking at me] but a gaze imagined by me in the field of the Other..the sound of rustling leaves....a footstep heard in a corridor.....the other surprises him, the subject, as entirely hidden gaze (p82-84).
It is this description that I have used as what the 'gaze' means in finding examples in the book "Do Androids Dream of Electric Sheep". For the purpose of this analysis the two main characters are Decker -the Bounty Hunter and Isidore - a 'special' (a 'special' is someone who has failed to meet the target IQ score that all who wish to be transferred from Earth must achieve). Reference will be made to the androids who are the other main element in the story but by definition they are all the same but are assigned slightly different characteristics for the purpose of the story.
As in the present day world, television is a major source of communication. For many it is the blind eye in the corner of the room but which can, both on and off, generate a whole gamut of feelings in us. Isidore 'owns' a set that can only receive one channel and that channel is owned by the government. It broadcasts for 17 hours a day a programme fronted by a presenter known as Buster Friendly who prostelyses the views of the government throughout the programme. It is in many ways the ultimate example of the gaze - it is an object that is unaware of our presence, has no knowledge of the feelings it generates and yet switched off , by its very silence, causes us anxiety.
After the world war that reduced the planet to rubble and decay most of the population were transferred to colonies on other planets - primarily Mars. Although those deemed unworthy of transfer had to remain on Earth there remained others who had refused to transfer despite being eligible. These people were bombarded with poster and TV ads and junk mail with the exhortation "Emigrate or degenerate". One is reminded of the blimp in the film. Further encouragement to leave Earth is the promise of the gift of an android created to the person's design with the promise that it would help 'duplicate the halcyon days of the pre-Civil War Southern states.
As stated above the gaze is "not a seen gaze but a gaze imagined by me in the field of the other" Reference is made to the rustling of the leaves. Having switched off the television Isidore is struck by the all pervading silence. Not only was he conscious of the silence, hearing nothing, but he also experienced it as having a life, that it was Alive. Silence was part of or was the Other in Isidore's world. It does not even have to have uncertain sounds such as a footstep heard elsewhere in the building to generate a sense of anxiety and of separation from others. In a later part of the book we are told of Isidore sudden awareness of the necessity of being with others in order to live. Although prior to the arrival of the androids he was able to live alone in the huge apartment block now he needed there presence to exist as a person.
Decker, the Bounty Hunter, in negotiating for the ownership of an owl (virtually all wild life had died out) becomes aware that under the conditions of the agreement he would become the hunted. He was aware that thinking that you are being stalked, whether true or not, has a marked effect upon the person. Here we have the gaze that is created by the fears or anxieties of the person who may never see his stalker. It is the belief that there is one that is the crucial factor.
An everyday object such as a pair of nail scissors can go 'unnoticed' for years. It is only when they are connected with the possibility of mutilation (in the book a spider found by Isidore is targeted by an android who is threatening to remove four of its legs) that anxieties are roused. There is a similarity with the sardine can in Lacan's story.
Although very few people have the experience of being shown a police officer's warrant card most have seen an officer in uniform. In the first case very few of us would challenge the validity of the card and would respond to any questions asked or directions given. In the latter case we would respond even when the Officer is some distance away even if we are innocent of any misdemeanour. Both the card and the uniform are 'objects' that cause some anxiety or tension in us. In the book Decker frequently shows his id card and in turn is shown someone elses. Both humans and androids behave in predictable albeit slightly different ways.
The book also raised a number of other interesting questions and I hope to 'think' about them in a future blog.
Monday 16 April 2012
Schrodinger's Cat
Schrodinger proposed a theoretical experiment to illustrate a principle in quantum theory known as superposition which theorises that for any physical entity, such as an electron, the entity is in all its possible states and a particular state is only known when observed. Schrodinger proposed that a living cat is placed inside a box along with a vial containing a lethal acid. Also in the chamber is a small amount a radioactive substance. The mechanism is so designed that should a single atom of the radioactive substance decay then a hammer is tripped that breaks the vial thus killing the cat.
The observer cannot know whether the vial has been broken and the cat killed. Since an entity can exist in all possible states for that entity - in the case of the cat dead, alive or dead/alive - then until the box is opened and an observation made the cat is in all three (or possibly more) states. In quantum mechanics the observation affects the outcome so that any outcome does not exist until an observation is made. Whilst this may be true for electrons it is more difficult for us to accept that it can be true for such an entity as a cat. In our experience of the world a cat is alive or dead - it cannot be both at the same time. (One is reminded of the Dead Parrot sketch in Monty Pythons Flying Circus where the buyer of the parrot insists that the parrot is dead whilst the shopkeeper holds the opposite view. The sketch is funny because we 'know' that the parrot is dead or alive and the efforts of the two antagonists to prove their point of view is seen by us as ridiculous because of this 'knowledge'.
Some hold to the theory of 'many worlds'. Simply put all possible outcomes happen but in parallel worlds that do not interact so that you both married the girl of your dreams as well as being jilted at the altar - two states that cannot both be true in one world. If this is the case then everything exists in every possible state created by a particular outcome until an observation is made in one of the worlds when a particular outcome becomes part of the memory stream of that world. However it also means that it is possible for all outcomes to become part of the memory stream in all the worlds created and just to make it more complex occasionally there could be interaction between worlds such that two or more memory streams existed in one world. Before you dismiss this idea as preposterous think of the times that you and another person have believed strongly in the outcome of an event you both shared yet the two versions are incompatible. You will assume that your friend has created a false memory BUT he will have the same opinion about you.
The observer cannot know whether the vial has been broken and the cat killed. Since an entity can exist in all possible states for that entity - in the case of the cat dead, alive or dead/alive - then until the box is opened and an observation made the cat is in all three (or possibly more) states. In quantum mechanics the observation affects the outcome so that any outcome does not exist until an observation is made. Whilst this may be true for electrons it is more difficult for us to accept that it can be true for such an entity as a cat. In our experience of the world a cat is alive or dead - it cannot be both at the same time. (One is reminded of the Dead Parrot sketch in Monty Pythons Flying Circus where the buyer of the parrot insists that the parrot is dead whilst the shopkeeper holds the opposite view. The sketch is funny because we 'know' that the parrot is dead or alive and the efforts of the two antagonists to prove their point of view is seen by us as ridiculous because of this 'knowledge'.
Some hold to the theory of 'many worlds'. Simply put all possible outcomes happen but in parallel worlds that do not interact so that you both married the girl of your dreams as well as being jilted at the altar - two states that cannot both be true in one world. If this is the case then everything exists in every possible state created by a particular outcome until an observation is made in one of the worlds when a particular outcome becomes part of the memory stream of that world. However it also means that it is possible for all outcomes to become part of the memory stream in all the worlds created and just to make it more complex occasionally there could be interaction between worlds such that two or more memory streams existed in one world. Before you dismiss this idea as preposterous think of the times that you and another person have believed strongly in the outcome of an event you both shared yet the two versions are incompatible. You will assume that your friend has created a false memory BUT he will have the same opinion about you.
Sunday 15 April 2012
Lacan - What is a picture?
Have read the passage three times and as with all of Lacan's work I remain unsure of what he is saying or trying to say. As is usual I did a web search to see if there was any entries that at least would offer a clue or a firm foundation on which I could build my ideas. I found none that seemed relevant although as always came across a number of articles vilifying Lacan and his ideas. I then followed through the requirement to read the article by Kaja Silverman - The Subject as it is suggested reading this article "may help". It is worth quoting from this work:
"Lacan's prose is notoriously remote, and his presentation deliberately a-systematic. Many of the terms to which he most frequently returns constantly shift meaning. These qualities make it almost impossible to offer definitive statements about the Lacanian argument; indeed, Lacan himself almost never agreed with his commentators." [visual culture: the reader; eds jessica evans and stuart hall; Sage Publications 2010 p 340].
Silverman avoids the problems that this raises for her as a commentator by "not attempt{ing} a comprehensive survey of the Lacanian argument, but will focus instead on those parts of it which have proved most assimilable to a broader psychoanalytic theory.." [Ibid pp 340-341]. It seems to be less than good academic practice to cherry pick those parts that support one's theory and even then ignore the problems with these parts that remain unclear or wrong. [see reference to Lacan's theory of the mirror image ibid p344 where she fails to address the question of the congenitally blind child and Lacan's initial belief that the mirror stage occurred at round about 4 months.
It would seem that having argued that Lacan "almost never agreed with his commentators" Silverman fails to see the irony of her being a commentator with whom Lacan would most likely disagree. I found the article less than helpful and, indeed, added to my confusion.
To add to my confusion further is the reference to an earlier statement by Lacan in the seminar that has been translated "the picture is in my eye but I am not in the picture" It is stated that this is arguably a mistranslation of the original but it is difficult to see how this has arisen - the negative in French is not easily mistaken. We are not offered the original statement in French for us to make a judgement or on what grounds the arguable case is put forward. In the text we were required to read Lacan states "I must, to begin with, insist on the following: in the scopic field, the gaze is outside, I am looked at, that is to say I am a picture" [The Visual Culture Reader ed Nicholas Mirzoeff 2nd edn Routledge 2002 p 126]. It is interesting to consider whether someone who is the picture is in or not in that picture.
I also found it difficult to relate the screen in Lacan's work with the description in the Course material where it is described as being something that 'cuts us off from something, like the screen around a hospital bed'. I would suggest that that Lacan's idea of a screen is different. He argues that the subject "isolates the function of the screen and plays with it. Man, in effect, knows how to play with the mask as that beyond which there is the gaze. The screen here is the locus of mediation" [ibid p128]. I would suggest that the screen is, as suggested in the Course material, our cultural conditioning but far from being an obstacle to 'seeing' we are able to see through the screen, albeit faintly and with a degree of distortion the 'reality' beyond it - we are able to mediate.
"Lacan's prose is notoriously remote, and his presentation deliberately a-systematic. Many of the terms to which he most frequently returns constantly shift meaning. These qualities make it almost impossible to offer definitive statements about the Lacanian argument; indeed, Lacan himself almost never agreed with his commentators." [visual culture: the reader; eds jessica evans and stuart hall; Sage Publications 2010 p 340].
Silverman avoids the problems that this raises for her as a commentator by "not attempt{ing} a comprehensive survey of the Lacanian argument, but will focus instead on those parts of it which have proved most assimilable to a broader psychoanalytic theory.." [Ibid pp 340-341]. It seems to be less than good academic practice to cherry pick those parts that support one's theory and even then ignore the problems with these parts that remain unclear or wrong. [see reference to Lacan's theory of the mirror image ibid p344 where she fails to address the question of the congenitally blind child and Lacan's initial belief that the mirror stage occurred at round about 4 months.
It would seem that having argued that Lacan "almost never agreed with his commentators" Silverman fails to see the irony of her being a commentator with whom Lacan would most likely disagree. I found the article less than helpful and, indeed, added to my confusion.
To add to my confusion further is the reference to an earlier statement by Lacan in the seminar that has been translated "the picture is in my eye but I am not in the picture" It is stated that this is arguably a mistranslation of the original but it is difficult to see how this has arisen - the negative in French is not easily mistaken. We are not offered the original statement in French for us to make a judgement or on what grounds the arguable case is put forward. In the text we were required to read Lacan states "I must, to begin with, insist on the following: in the scopic field, the gaze is outside, I am looked at, that is to say I am a picture" [The Visual Culture Reader ed Nicholas Mirzoeff 2nd edn Routledge 2002 p 126]. It is interesting to consider whether someone who is the picture is in or not in that picture.
I also found it difficult to relate the screen in Lacan's work with the description in the Course material where it is described as being something that 'cuts us off from something, like the screen around a hospital bed'. I would suggest that that Lacan's idea of a screen is different. He argues that the subject "isolates the function of the screen and plays with it. Man, in effect, knows how to play with the mask as that beyond which there is the gaze. The screen here is the locus of mediation" [ibid p128]. I would suggest that the screen is, as suggested in the Course material, our cultural conditioning but far from being an obstacle to 'seeing' we are able to see through the screen, albeit faintly and with a degree of distortion the 'reality' beyond it - we are able to mediate.
Saturday 7 April 2012
Baudrillard - Reality and the Matrix
Baudrillard argues that in our post modern society the simulacrum precedes the original and that difference between representation and reality disappears. There is only the simulacrum i.e. there is no reality and to talk of an underlying reality is to talk about a meaningless concept. He distinguishes four stages in the relationship between sign-order.
The first stage is denoted by our belief, whether well-founded or not, that a sign is a "reflection of a profound reality" (p6 Simulacra and Simulation -Baudrillard 1994); in the second stage we believe that the sign is not an accurate copy of the reality although we continue to believe that there is a reality that the sign is unable to faithfully represent; in the third stage signs and images claim to be linked to reality but that reality does not exist; and in the fourth stage the sign has no relationship to reality and signs point to other signs so their legitimacy rests only on the existence of these signs but these in turn may well seek legitimacy from the existence of the signs that reference them. Baudrillard refers to this final stage as hyperreality.
"In postmodernism, hyperreality is the result of the technological mediation of experience, where what passes for for reality is a network of images and signs without an external referent, such that what is represented is representation itself" (http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/postmodernism). In layman's terms no matter how exhaustive the search for the underpinning reality the searcher will always find yet another sign.
In the film Matrix the humans exist in a world of signs that have no relationship to reality. The reality, offered in the film, is the reality that is occupied by a 'superior' race of Artificial Intelligence (AI). Humans exist to serve the needs of the Artificial Intelligence beings that need the existence of the humans who represent a vital energy source. In this case we have one 'reality' populated by the AI beings and another that only exists in the collective minds of the human population. The film centres around a group of humans who for some unexplained reason have become aware of the existence of the two realities and fight to take their place in the reality dominated by the AI beings. In a sense this group are able to exist in both realities at the same time.
Of the two realities it can be argued that the 'reality' of the AI beings is that of the first stage and the 'reality' of the humans that of the fourth stage but the only referent system we are offered is that of the script of the film. It may be the case that the AI beings are as deluded as the humans and that they are under the control of a greater being. There is no way of knowing what is reality even under Baudrillard's stages as all rely upon our belief system. I may believe that I am the only one who is living in a 'profound reality' and that everyone else is mistaken in their beliefs. Yet my only referent system is the one that I think I occupy that can of course be of the fourth order stage. It is interesting to consider whether, if I am correct in believing that I am the only one living in reality, why I created the reality in which I live and how I keep it populated with others of whom I can have no experience.
The first stage is denoted by our belief, whether well-founded or not, that a sign is a "reflection of a profound reality" (p6 Simulacra and Simulation -Baudrillard 1994); in the second stage we believe that the sign is not an accurate copy of the reality although we continue to believe that there is a reality that the sign is unable to faithfully represent; in the third stage signs and images claim to be linked to reality but that reality does not exist; and in the fourth stage the sign has no relationship to reality and signs point to other signs so their legitimacy rests only on the existence of these signs but these in turn may well seek legitimacy from the existence of the signs that reference them. Baudrillard refers to this final stage as hyperreality.
"In postmodernism, hyperreality is the result of the technological mediation of experience, where what passes for for reality is a network of images and signs without an external referent, such that what is represented is representation itself" (http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/postmodernism). In layman's terms no matter how exhaustive the search for the underpinning reality the searcher will always find yet another sign.
In the film Matrix the humans exist in a world of signs that have no relationship to reality. The reality, offered in the film, is the reality that is occupied by a 'superior' race of Artificial Intelligence (AI). Humans exist to serve the needs of the Artificial Intelligence beings that need the existence of the humans who represent a vital energy source. In this case we have one 'reality' populated by the AI beings and another that only exists in the collective minds of the human population. The film centres around a group of humans who for some unexplained reason have become aware of the existence of the two realities and fight to take their place in the reality dominated by the AI beings. In a sense this group are able to exist in both realities at the same time.
Of the two realities it can be argued that the 'reality' of the AI beings is that of the first stage and the 'reality' of the humans that of the fourth stage but the only referent system we are offered is that of the script of the film. It may be the case that the AI beings are as deluded as the humans and that they are under the control of a greater being. There is no way of knowing what is reality even under Baudrillard's stages as all rely upon our belief system. I may believe that I am the only one who is living in a 'profound reality' and that everyone else is mistaken in their beliefs. Yet my only referent system is the one that I think I occupy that can of course be of the fourth order stage. It is interesting to consider whether, if I am correct in believing that I am the only one living in reality, why I created the reality in which I live and how I keep it populated with others of whom I can have no experience.
Wednesday 4 April 2012
Blade Runner - Do androids dream of electric sheep?.
Whilst searching for more information about Blade Runner I came across a reference to the book "Do Androids Dream of Electric Sheep" that claims to be the basis for the film "Blade Runner" . It is true that the main character in the film is the same as in the book and indeed he is a bounty hunter whose task is to 'retire' (kill) androids. Other characters from the book appear but it could not be claimed that the film bears any close relationship to the book.
The book presents Decker as human with a wife and an electric sheep and the book provides a much more rounded character than that portrayed by Harrison Ford in the film. We see a number of sides of him most strikingly his doubts about his work particularly after he had made love to one of the androids. He portrays as human with all the weaknesses of the species as well as the strengths. For me he was much more believable as a character.
The book also presents the androids (called replicants in the film) in greater detail. Most strikingly they are aware of their status, their strengths and their weaknesses. We are offered the resignation with which they accept death whether it is sudden, as in being retired by a bounty hunter, or as a result of the limit of their lives that is four years. They have no empathy so cannot put themselves in the position of another whether it be another android or a human. It is one characteristic that distinguishes them from most human beings thus allowing them to be recognised. Sometimes it is easy to feel sorry for them insofar as they hunted down to be retired, or 'die' after only four years of existence, treated as slaves on the colonies (Mars and other planets settled by the humans escaping from the devastation caused by a nuclear world war), or hunted down if they manage to escape their bondage.
I much preferred the book to the film, the latter being more like a violent video game. At least the book is populated by characters that have 'souls' and self awareness.
The book presents Decker as human with a wife and an electric sheep and the book provides a much more rounded character than that portrayed by Harrison Ford in the film. We see a number of sides of him most strikingly his doubts about his work particularly after he had made love to one of the androids. He portrays as human with all the weaknesses of the species as well as the strengths. For me he was much more believable as a character.
The book also presents the androids (called replicants in the film) in greater detail. Most strikingly they are aware of their status, their strengths and their weaknesses. We are offered the resignation with which they accept death whether it is sudden, as in being retired by a bounty hunter, or as a result of the limit of their lives that is four years. They have no empathy so cannot put themselves in the position of another whether it be another android or a human. It is one characteristic that distinguishes them from most human beings thus allowing them to be recognised. Sometimes it is easy to feel sorry for them insofar as they hunted down to be retired, or 'die' after only four years of existence, treated as slaves on the colonies (Mars and other planets settled by the humans escaping from the devastation caused by a nuclear world war), or hunted down if they manage to escape their bondage.
I much preferred the book to the film, the latter being more like a violent video game. At least the book is populated by characters that have 'souls' and self awareness.
Monday 2 April 2012
Yet another Reader
Came across two references to required reading that simply referred to the Course Reader and gave page numbers. Neither reference was correct and when I contacted my Tutor he told me that the book referred to was The Visual Culture Reader [ed. Nicholas Mirzeoff, Routledge London, 2002.] not the Course reader! As if the Course isn't difficult enough without easily rectified mistakes remaining in the Course material.
Managed to get hold of a copy that makes life a bit easier although the articles are their usual obscure selves. Oh happy days.
Managed to get hold of a copy that makes life a bit easier although the articles are their usual obscure selves. Oh happy days.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)