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.
No comments:
Post a Comment