Keanu, Ken, and Baudrillard

Okay, so this is where I have a hard time blogging. I really enjoyed Ken’s post. Once again it was very clear and east to read, which is a nice change of pace from our theory readings. I must say that I don’t really have anything to say. I am all tapped out. It is hard coming up with clever and through provoking things every week. My brain is tired. However, I will try and tease out some things in Ken’s post that I found interesting and note worthy.

Ken refers to Baudrillard’s comments on labor and Marxism. Capitalism really doesn’t care about who produces, it is all about consumption and neutralizing the ‘use-value.’ I think this is a very bold and true statement. Even if Marxism tried to focus on the producer, the man behind the machine, it inevitably wouldn’t matter because I don’t think any form of anti-capitalism could ever be achieved. Do I really care about the person who made my shiny new phone, skinny jeans, or makeup? No, all that matters is my dollah billz. Maybe I have this all wrong, maybe I will never understand Marxism… I don’t think I ever really want to, but the relationship between consumer and producer will always be relevant because of our society.

After getting through Baudrillard and Marxism, I really understood the whole cow/hay example and thought it was a perfect example to use. This brings me to concur with the idea that society could never exist without signification. Let’s face it, we would all go MAD!

Finally, I really like the ideas behind simulacrum and simulation. I mean how ridiculous can theory really get? I have already accepted so many of these crazy ideas as “truths,” or at least taken them into consideration, and now they want to spring this on me???!!!! Oh boy.

Okay, so let’s be serious here. I know that the search for reality is key to critical theory; I get that part. However, I think all of these people really discredit the realities that we face every day. What would Baudrillard say about 9-11? What would any of these people say if they were still alive?

I understand the Disney and Epcot synthesis however, how can there ever be a copy of something without an original. In order for a “copy” to be made there must be an original to be copied. I believe in originals! I believe in the real!!! I am not going to give away the real. I have been through too many “REAL” experiences to just say goodbye to it. Perhaps this is where I get lost, any suggestions?

Also, Keanu is such a great actor. He is so versatile and really should be up for this year’s life time achievement award. Sarcasm, sarcasm, sarcasm.

Bang-Bang! THUD! The Author is DEAD!!!!

I think I am finally starting to understand this whole theory thing. Although this weeks Barry reading was dry, I really enjoyed Barthes’ “The Death of the Author.” I actually felt as though I understood some of what someone was talking about…for once.

The author is dead and I finally killed him. Wow, who would have thought I would agree with this statement. I think it was a month ago when I refused to kill him off. However, I understand it now. Barthes said, “To give a text an Author is to impose a limit on that text, to finish it with a final

signified, to close the writing.” I never thought of this perspective. I mean really, what does the author really have to do with anything if he/she is just a product of the times? After all Barthes said, “[a] book itself is only a tissue of signs.”

After my extensive walk through the blog-o-sphere, I discovered Bitch PH.D. Now, I must say that I am not one for reading every rant in the blog world; however, I did find what Ms. Bitch had to say appealing.

Dr. Bitch began talking about pseudonyms in the blogging community. She said, “Pseudonyms prevent texts from being impersonal, from pretending to objectivity; they draw attention to the author’s role in a way that a straight byline does not. At the same time, though, pseudonyms make a text more fully public: by hiding the author’s identity, the author becomes potentially anyone.”
Isn’t this exactly what Barthes and Foucault talk about in their essays? Isn’t pseudonymity a parallel for these theoretical beliefs? Perhaps this is what makes authorship so problematic. When I look at an author’s name, I immediate think of a context and other works they have written; I am already biased!

Since I have a hard time releasing the author from his work, I should adopt the idea that an Author is pseudonomininous (this is not a real word, but I like it). This relates to the whole idea of blogging. Blogging is almost like a production, it turns writers into actors on a stage where no ones identity is ever really fixed or set in stone.

Hmmmmm..... The picture you may ask??? Its how theory makes me feel... most days.

I Got Id

I think this weeks post will be a mix and match of everything floating around in my brain.

First of all, I wanted to take the time to comment on the Derrida documentary. I was not a fan of the documentary; however, I appreciate the little nuances the documentary put forth. The documentary chose to depict Paris in its most dismal and deconstructed state. This parallels the very message of deconstruction. Instead of showing Paris in its most spectacular grandeur, Paris was, in essence, deconstructed.

The irony of the documentary is that it is deconstructed in nature. Derrida goes into great detail in regards to the self/other relationship and the escapable truth. Ironically, the documentary is trying to depict truths about Derrida. However, Derrida’s truth about himself will be much different that the film maker’s truth. In fact, at one point in the documentary, Derrida explains how he acts differently in front of the camera.

Also, the film was very interesting and voyeuristic. I often felt uncomfortable watching the documentary. There were these remarkable scenes where we watched Derrida watching himself watch himself. I found this visual choice shocking and very effective. I also enjoyed how Derrida was shown as a regular man. The film always focused on his brilliant mind; literally I was always looking at the image of his head. I found that quite remarkable and thought provoking because he was depicted as an average man with this brilliant mind.

Secondly, I would like to comment on psychoanalytic theory. I have always been fascinated by Freud and psychoanalysis. I am captivated by metaphoric and metonymic thought. While doing the exercise in class I realized that I am more of a metonymic thinker than a metaphoric thinker.

However, maybe I like studying Freud because I kind of understand his thoughts. Please don’t get me wrong here, I am in no way saying that I believe in the Oedipus complex or saying I have penis envy. However, I understand that the unconscious is one of the most powerful and revealing forces the human mind has.

I don’t think I will ever understand the depths of my brain; however, it is fun to try and figure out why I, or anyone else, is so screwed up. Also, this relates too many of the ideas we have already studied in language theory. Will we ever really understand language? I am sure we can recall a few important people who don’t think so!

I mean take any one of your weird nightly dreams and try and analyze it. I have this one recurring dream. I am a child and there is this scary clown-man that is chasing me through my empty house. After seeing him kill all of my family members, I try and jump down a very long flight of stairs. However, just as I reach the bottom stair his “go-go gadget arms” grab me and pull me back to the top stair. The dream ends when I am some how transported to my front glass door. It is locked and the scary clown-man is pacing back and forth clawing at the glass. Scary? I happen to think so.

This is one of the night terrors I had as a child. It is one of the only terrors I remember and I always manage to have the dream every year, and every year it gets more and more involved.

Could this perhaps be my unconscious telling me something? Is this figure a displacement of my father? Is this figure a condensation of my fear of death that I acquired at a young age?

I happen to think I have this dream because I am beyond afraid of losing the people I love. This happened because I was introduced to death at a very young age. Perhaps, these are a few of the reasons. I am sure Freud would have a few more ideas…..

Also, I am looking foward to reading Lacan for tomorrow. I am very interested in this mirror business!

La Lengua

Ocean, as defined by dictionary.com, is a vast body of salt water that covers ¾ of the earth’s surface. However, what if ocean were not the word used to describe what we know as the ocean. What if the ocean was named thesip? For instance, on a hot summer’s day you would go to the thesip to soak up the sun. In other words, does the word ocean really have anything to do with what the ocean really is?

This week in class we were asked to study structuralism and Ferdinand Saussure . I must say I was fascinated by a structuralist’s perspective regarding language and how humans have come up with language to define/rationalize the things that surround us. Structuralists, like Saussure, believe that language is made up of signs. A sign, in my mind, is an equation,

Signified + Signifier = Sign

In this definition, the signified and signifier work together to create signs that are representative of language and sound. This relates to Saussure’s belief that the “bond between the signifier and the signified is radically arbitrary.” Structuralists believe that reality is created through language and the construction of signs. For instance, the word flower is a sign that is made up of the signified and the signifier. The signified is the concept of the flower, the signifier is the arbitrary definition of flower, and the sign is the word.

Does the word flower have anything to do with the intrinsic value of that flower? No. The term flower is merely a means of defining the idea/concept of what we see to make a rational definition. The word for flower will forever be fixed through the use of language. The term flower will help us differentiate a flower from a tree, a plant, or a blade of grass. However, since our definition is arbitrary the sign will always be unstable. Through the structuralist perspective, it is only through the opposition of signs that can we truly know the difference between signs. For instance, the sign sunflower will help designate a difference between a rose or tree. The relationship between signs is relational and dependent on difference.

I could not agree more with the arbitrarity of language. Granted arbirtarity is not a word, however, you all know what I mean. Saussure states, “philosophers and linguists have always agreed in recognizing that without the help of signs we would be unable to make a clear-cut, consistent distinction between two ideas. Without language, though it is vague, though it is an uncharted nebula. There are no pre-existing ideas and nothing us distinct before the appearance of language (34).”

Although Saussure is complicating, his theories about language are fascinating and accessible through examples. I happen to agree with the idea that language is arbitrary and symbolic. It is mind bending to think about language and all its complexities. The way we come up with signs, as a society , is really intriguing and something I would like learn more about. It makes me think, if words are arbitrary is meaning arbitrary? If that is the case, how do we glean so much meaning from texts?