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.
Sunday, 22 April 2012
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.
Friday, 30 March 2012
Blade Runner
The suggested reading does not appear to be in the Course Reader. I have e-mailed my tutor seeking guidance.
Have now watched Blade Runner - the Director's Cut Version. Not a film I would have chosen for my personal entertainment before viewing and even less likely having sat through it. We are asked to consider whether Deckard is a human or a replicant. There is insufficient information provided to make a well-informed decision but if forced I would argue that he is human. There is one moment in the film when one of the replicants accuses Deckard of being irrational. Irrationality is not something that we, in our present state of knowledge, would ascribe to a robot. There are also the fights that Deckard has with all the replicants where they are superior in strength. Both these factors would suggest that Deckard is not a replicant. However the replicants he has set out to destroy are Nexus 6 that are presented as the latest version. Deckard could be an earlier and less sophisticated version and does not have the abilities of the latest versions. The only way that a replicant can be distinguished from a human by contemporaries in the film is by the use of a machine that measures minute changes in the pupil size. We are not offered this information about Deckard.
A question that has exercised the minds of a great many philosophers and others is how we can tell whether the object we are facing is human or a robot/replicant. Alan Turing suggested a test that would allow someone to make the distinction. However the test has been challenged on a number of grounds. For a comprehensive discussion of the 'Turing Test' see http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/turing-test.
A question that is implicit in the discussions is 'How do we decide that the object in front of us is an intelligent human being?" We can only guess based on the information (both visual, verbal and behavioural) that is presented. We also rely upon our belief that such beings as replicants as shown in the Blade Runner do not exist and that computers are incapable at the present time to appear humanoid even in the most primitive sense. We gain a great deal of information from conversation but where this is not available to us (e.g. we are in a foreign country whose language we do not speak) we make the assumption that because something looks and behaves like a human it is human.
Have now watched Blade Runner - the Director's Cut Version. Not a film I would have chosen for my personal entertainment before viewing and even less likely having sat through it. We are asked to consider whether Deckard is a human or a replicant. There is insufficient information provided to make a well-informed decision but if forced I would argue that he is human. There is one moment in the film when one of the replicants accuses Deckard of being irrational. Irrationality is not something that we, in our present state of knowledge, would ascribe to a robot. There are also the fights that Deckard has with all the replicants where they are superior in strength. Both these factors would suggest that Deckard is not a replicant. However the replicants he has set out to destroy are Nexus 6 that are presented as the latest version. Deckard could be an earlier and less sophisticated version and does not have the abilities of the latest versions. The only way that a replicant can be distinguished from a human by contemporaries in the film is by the use of a machine that measures minute changes in the pupil size. We are not offered this information about Deckard.
A question that has exercised the minds of a great many philosophers and others is how we can tell whether the object we are facing is human or a robot/replicant. Alan Turing suggested a test that would allow someone to make the distinction. However the test has been challenged on a number of grounds. For a comprehensive discussion of the 'Turing Test' see http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/turing-test.
A question that is implicit in the discussions is 'How do we decide that the object in front of us is an intelligent human being?" We can only guess based on the information (both visual, verbal and behavioural) that is presented. We also rely upon our belief that such beings as replicants as shown in the Blade Runner do not exist and that computers are incapable at the present time to appear humanoid even in the most primitive sense. We gain a great deal of information from conversation but where this is not available to us (e.g. we are in a foreign country whose language we do not speak) we make the assumption that because something looks and behaves like a human it is human.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)