A bit too cerebral

Considering what it means to be a cyborg can become a bit too cerebral. I know this because spending four or five days immersed in contemplation over writing a cyborg rhetoric bent my brain. It also probably made some of my friends scratch their heads wondering why I had difficulty holding on a simple conversation. Spending the next four days writing a first draft of a cyborg rhetoric broke my brain… but, whenever I break my brain, I seem to have a realization of one kind or another. What I realized this afternoon, after walking away from my computer, was just how good it felt to have a bunch of wood rounds to split. And how much better it felt to actually split them. And while I was splitting wood, I had another realization. If we ever do become “quintessence,” or the pure embodiment of consciousness, there’s a lot of physical activities I’m going to miss way more than splitting wood.

What is cyborg rhetoric?

Cyborg rhetoric, among other things, is a call to action. It is a call to re–invent rhetoric, and change the meaning of our existence. Donna Haraway states, “over the last thirty years, a class war of immense proportions has been waged globally, and it’s been very successful. At the same time, we’ve almost lost the ability to talk in class terms on what used to be called ‘the left.’ That’s a terrible loss on our part” (14, Haraway, interview with Gary A. Olsen, JAC Vol. 16, Vol. 1). To regain our “ability to talk in class terms” we must again begin to actively discuss this nation’s global agenda in “class terms” in the academic setting. Cyborg rhetoric acknowledges the need for resistance to grow on all fronts; therefore, if we are to be true to the dream, activism in academics has to move into the public sphere. It is no longer acceptable to pour our efforts into changing the hierarchal structure in the classroom alone. Our goal must be to struggle against oppressive ideologies across the board, and this means recognizing the ideology of oppression has crossed gender lines, and infiltrated racial and ethnic circles.

consciousness

What does it mean to be a conscious human being taking into account the mind and the body? There are so many levels of human consciousness that it’s impossible to answer this question in a general way… but one way to look at it would be to consider what it might mean to be a human mind without a body. That it’s possible has been documented. Completely paralyzed people, for instance, could be said to be a mind without a body, but that always makes it seem so undesirable. But then, there’s this other idea –– I’ve seen it on film -- Tibetan monks, sitting in sub–zero temperatures, bodies steaming while minds are steeped in deep meditation. This idea, that our consciousness doesn’t so much depend on our bodies as it does on our minds, seems much more desirable than thinking about being paralyzed. I mean, what would it be like to be in a state where only your eyes could move? I know I would probably be thinking that just being able to unclog a toilet would be fun. But really, who even wants to consider that? Now the other idea, that we can control our bodies, seemingly without effort, can lead to some interesting ideas about consciousness and where it resides.

What if?

What if embodiment is an action rather than a being? My initial reaction to the question was “it’s both.” The reaction came from my gut… it was a feeling, but that’s not the only reason I believe embodiment is both –– or being in action. However, I do think embodiment could be the action of a body without “meat.” After reading chapter nine in “How We Became Post–human,” I think the creators of Artificial Life are proving there can be life that is nothing more than action and information. I also think it’s possible for humans to evolve into this state, and that perhaps this state will become our ultimate condition. But for the time being, it is not our choice.

Where'd they get the plot?

I heard somewhere along the line that the movie “Groundhog Day” is a light–hearted portrayal of P.D. Ouspensky’s theory of recurrence, and after watching “The Matrix” for the first time I thought that maybe it was an enigmatic portrayal of Gurdjieff’s philosophy –– focusing on the immersive hypnotic effect of the Magician on the sheep to keep them asleep. This time around, I took some notes while watching that movie, and I now think it’s highly arguable that it has at least incorporated some of Gurdjieff’s philosophy.

Just a little of the irony

What does Harraway mean by an ironic dream? I suppose the most obvious irony is the fact that she has to struggle with the use the language of binaries to undermine the language of binaries. Her dream is also ironic, at least in part I think, because it realizes the only “common language” available to the cyborg is no language at all. “Our best machines are made of sunshine; they are all light and clean because they are nothing but signals, electromagnetic waves, a section of a spectrum, and these machines are eminently portable, mobile […] People are nowhere near so fluid, being both material and opaque. Cyborgs are ether, quintessence” (5). Such a “fluid” world, it seems, would be bound only by swirling, energetic particles, with no need to communicate other than with a momentary passing of energy, one to the other. Yet, that too is ironic, because a momentary passing of energy would automatically equate to a “common language.”

There Is Justice

Thinking about what goes on inside complicates the question of the virtual and the real, because it leads to the conclusion that since I live in two worlds in the real world already, the outer and the inner, a virtual world is actually a 3rd world. So, if I were to sit quietly and enter my inner world in a closed room in Lambda Moo, would the inside I visited be a 4th world? Of course not. We all know that would be a ridiculous statement, because nobody needs technology to go into his or her inner world to begin with. No matter which world we’re in ––the real or the virtual–– we’re in the same inside. And this means, in reality, if he isn’t a true sociopath, Mr. Bungle committed a very real crime against himself.

Out with the old and in with the new… we no longer discuss the possibility of an all encompassing place of clarity, of yes and no, outside the circle containing the yin and the yang. Now that place is said to be found inside the circle on the line between the two figures. That place of yes and no is now described as the place between the sign and the signified –– the slash between the Sign/Signified. This is exactly opposite in juxtaposition with the place of the line in the old religion, yet both represent a way to transcend duality. What’s next?

Out with the old and in with the new… we no longer discuss the possibility of an all encompassing place of clarity, of yes and no, outside the circle containing the yin and the yang. Now that place is said to be found inside the circle on the line between the two figures. That place of yes and no is now described as the place between the sign and the signified –– the slash between the Sign/Signified. This is exactly opposite in juxtaposition with the place of the line in the old religion, yet both represent a way to transcend duality. What’s next?

I’d love to enter a VR world in its finest form to enact a plot. However, since I enact a plot in reality, my plane of existence responsible for the twists and turns, not to mention there are so many ways to be creative in this world, I don’t think I’ll lament over the fact that experiencing the ultimate VR world is not in the cards for me. And you can say sour grapes, but how could VR, even though some dream of it as “total art,” possibly be considered “the ultimate medium?” Art is meant to be shared.