we could put all the hundreds of thousands of computers we throw away every year in the classrooms. we could give every kid a computer. we could put linux on all of them. we could guarantee an unprecedented evolution of contributions and understanding of the basics of an information world. we could give birth to a new system of free software and free information. we could demand the right of corporate and political disclosure. the right of anonymity. the right of access. the right of distribution. the right of equal education. the right of equal opportunity. the right to remain autonomous – and to elect to join a political/social/economic structure on our own terms. the right to not consume. the right to be – to not be bombarded incessantly with advertisements whose sole purpose is to tell us we are not happy with what we have. thousands upon thousands of advertisements telling us how we are not content. removing us from a state of perception and physicality to one of desire. and this is sold as if it is a public service (by the mega-companies who make our culture). we could demand the right to not be bombarded with advertisements. remove brand names from everything you own. don’t buy things with brand names prominently displayed and then remove them. remove the tags, the stickers, the buttons. put blank stickers over any brand names you can not remove. paint them out. cut them down. people who steal hood ornaments are doing us all a favor. melt them for their metal. we are assaulted every second by a barrage of advertisements and brand names (which are only advertisements). i demand the right to be. the right to not be forcefully reminded of how terrible my life is without this or that product. the right to sit on the beach without planes flying banners across my horizon. the right to ride in a bus without mini-billboards. the right to sit in my home without seeing a thousand brand names plastered over everything. the right to read articles without various web banners and full page pullout sections (check out some web ad blockers that seem to work with varying degrees of success – why download ads – it is your computer right?). the right to come home to my house and not have flyers cluttering my porch. the right not only to the full disclosure of corporate and government organizations, but also the right to be able to choose not to participate. i not only want to know that viacom now owns cbs, mtv, nickelodeon, vh1, tvland, shotime, the movie channel, tnn, cmt, home team sports, midwest sports channel, 34 televison stations, eyemark entertainment, king world productions, paramount television, viacom productions, spelling television, paramount pictures, paramount home video, blockbuster video, simon & schuster publishing, five theme parks and interests in comedy central, the sundance channel, united paramount network, united international pictures, and infinity broadcasting (which operates 163 radio stations). i also demand the right to not be force fed a single advertisement or media production that viacom produces. (and viacom is only the third largest media giant behind time warner and walt disney.) i want to know every product made by philip morris, by procter & gamble, by r.j. reynolds. i want to have a choice to live my life without increasing the power of mega-media truth makers who push mega-companies products as staples. i want to know every country we sold arms to and what they were. i want to know every record the united states government has on me. i demand the right of anonymity.
information warfare
Archive: Author: wade tillett
absob language filter
we must absorb language in order to annihilate it. language absorbs its self. this is not the clean and pure empty void. this is a space of empty floating words, a battlefield after a battle strewn with corpses of meaning. the words lie there in there physicality, exhausted, transformed and meaningless by attempts to transform and include. language is not excluded, but taken to its extreme – allowed to work against its self, to find its own definition and therefore eliminate it. (as if it were that simple… our whole idea of self is based upon language)
language reinvents its self. through mathematics. by breaking its self down to its most crude form, 0 or 1, presence or absence. and from there language can build an entire alter-world. a powerful social world which modifies and controls. but the place to attack language is at its base, at the initial division of presence and absence. when you zoom in to a line, can you ever really see it?
what is a position above language, beyond language? can we really claim to have exhausted language when it is the basis of our entire society and environment and is poised to become increasingly so?
towards a language filter. augmented reality. modified reality. an interface which eliminates that which we do not want to see. which re-distributes. a personal political system. (politics is a form of language as it is based on definition, division and distribution.) if we want to see what the future of a language filtered reality will look like we only need to examine political system filters. enormous possibilities of extremely complex filters are already in place as a societal language (media) filter. the difference now is that we have the possibility of further individualizing these filters. to modify our own reality filters. we have the possibility, but of course this possibility is limited in relation to a power structure which already exists. this possibility will be used to reinforce power structure, although it does have the potential to destroy it (by becoming completely personal and autonomous).
what might we not want to see through our modified language filter? there is the possibility of a complete solipsism, an eternal bliss of utopic dreams rendered real, the brave new world. but then, this would mean the elimination of our self, of our power, by the elimination of difference. it would mean the elimination of the physical self, the physical body, and therefor the elimination of definition of self altogether. we are a power hungry people, darwinists. (remember why communism doesn’t work?) filters serve to increase power through further definition and division, often under the guise of inclusion. what don’t we want to see? the poor, for example. but then, we do want to see the poor. however, we want to see the poor through certain filters. the potential of a personal language filter is that it could make evident the amazing political filters we already have in place. as foucault suggests, society needs the image of the delinquent to set up what society does not want you to become. the delinquent is set up as an example, a stereotype, an anti-meaning, an anti-definition, in order to further the definitions of those in power. what sort of language filters would we expect to see as we look at the poor? we must examine the political filters already in place.
1) the viewable poor would be greatly reduced in number to the actual number. (take the current census counting debate for example). this is done through various methods: by locating the viewer away from the poor (the filter plots journeys and destinations in order to avoid encountering the poor), by glossing over the poor when seen at a distance (as one architecture professor used to say, ‘if you have an ugly part of a building, put a tree in front of it on the rendering.’ the filter places other virtual objects in the foreground of the poor so that they are not seen)
2) the viewable poor would be used to reinforce the power structure by enhancing stereotypes and definitions. By choosing stereotypical encounters with the poor (certain poor are ‘chosen’ for encounters with the viewer in order to enhance the stereotype filter – prime example being the delinquent), by utilizing pre-conceived media filters when the poor are encountered (when the viewer sees the poor, text could flash on the screen, crude examples: ‘drunk’ ‘hasn’t even looked for a job’ ‘drug-user’ ‘dumb’ ‘got what he deserved’ ‘you don’t want to end up like this – work.’ these are very crude though, actual filters are much more complex than this. a drunken stumble could be added to the rendering, a certain political party could be associated as the cause, a memory could flash in the background…). the idea is to create a filter which makes society, the system of power and distribution, ‘just.’ or at least more just than any other system.
3) the poor must be seen as essential. (‘illegal aliens, foreign laborers, etc. who don’t make minimum wage form an essential part of our economy…’) the other filters prop up the distribution aspect of political power. this filter props up the initial division into 0’s and 1’s, haves and have-nots. it provides a reinforcement of definition and division which further provides the reason for distribution. what is held up as the ultimate reason of division? distribution. and the reason for distribution? division. a circular argument which continually reinforces its self from within. why do we need the poor? without them there would be no rich. why do we need division? without it there would be no distribution. why do we need distribution? without it there would be no division, no definition, no self (preservation).
so what can we expect of personal realities modified by language filters? a political system. a media complex. (the best search engines only give us 15% of what is out there.) how is the filter constructed? who controls the filters construction? how does it benefit them? the filter is not going to be this nice abstract utopic personal dream renderer. you might be able to take ‘vacations’ to what you think is that land (although it will really be an even more perfectly constructed land, like disneyworld), but the environment in which we work and live is controlled and will be controlled by a play of political power struggles implementing their own filters on our world. language itself is a political construct. we are bombarded with images and advertisements all of which are carefully selected for their political import. our entire environment and image of our self is the manifestation of political filters. we could waste our time worrying about personal realities degrading into solipsism (which will never happen as long as people pursue self-preservation), or we could examine and fight those controlling and filtering our personal realities right now.
which brings us back to the original question. what is a place beyond language? beyond filters? the filter must be attacked at its base. without regard to self-preservation (that’s how they get ya – your unwillingness to give up the definition of self you have grown so fond of). at the initial division of 0’s and 1’s. by challenging the reality of the line. by challenging the reality of a point. by zooming in infinitely and seeing that between 0 and 1 is everything and nothing, an infinity in which nothing exists as static. how thin is a line? there are only fields.
consumer prosthetics
no longer can we imagine pure platonic forms. nothing is pure. nothing is separate. nothing is autonomous. never can the representation be removed from what it represents, that is, never can a representation be prevented from affecting what it represents. the act of representation changes that which it represents. and thus, hper-real representation attempts to include and anticipate its own effect. but despite the many gyrations and meta-games a representation can never include its self nor its effect. to include the effect in the definition is to destroy definition and representation. no longer does representation exist in a space separate from the real.
we are no longer interested in representations but in effects, chain reactions, attractors, half-life. in prosthetics and their possibilities for extensions of the self. in prosthetics and their possibilities for extensions of multiple selves, of groups of selves, of schizophrenias, communities. no more metaphors. now we have virtualities, hidden undercurrents, sub-cyber information power links. we have vehicles and shelters within information, within the power structure.
we have fascist regimes. corporations that need power to further their cause. fascist regimes that gain power from your desire for their product, their service, their prosthetic which will allow you to extend, enhance, protect and preserve your self. by allowing further definition of your identity through the brands and products you consume. this is a much more subtle fascism. one that hides behind governments. pretends that governments are still in power, that democracy is alive and well because of your freedom to choose.
where the power structure lies is not in what you choose, but in the choices that have been presented to you. the things not listed on the menu are quickly dismissed as non-choices, choices already weeded out by supply and demand. ‘democratic choices’ which have already been made. these are the choices we must look at. choices like non-ownership, community ownership, public ownership, elective ownership, pulsating ownership, revolving ownership….
corporate fascism always presents itself in the form of one of the variety of products it is offering or some horrible alternative. an either/or. what i am questioning is the democracy part of democratic capitalism. when companies have more money than entire countries, might it be reasonable to question who is in control? should not these companies be held to much tighter standards and disclosures than even government because they are not a representation of the people.
deregulation of industries is touted as allowing true competition. but industry deregulation is simply a symptom of corporations more powerful than governments. deregulation allows corporations to operate on a scale larger than governments. mega-conglomerates of media and financial institutions are necessary in order to preserve us interests through the extension of corporate power based in the us. remember that the cold war was an economic war, the spoils of which are economic colonization. deregulation allows for the massive deployment of propaganda and products on an international scale. yeah, you can send a couple hand-crafted wooden chairs to russia through your web page but who would want them. they could make those for themselves. the products and services which makes the united states a superpower are the products and services which provide a capital investment which no one else can match. this is the reason for deregulation, to ensure unmatched corporate capital bases. the united states is the world bank. brokering investments and taking a cut through the use of unmatched funds. we no longer need a weapons war to drain economies of their wealth. american interests are strong enough worldwide to provide the backbone of economic infrastructure. what are the essential industries of an american based corporate fascism? media and finance. industries which have both been heavily deregulated since the end of the cold war. the government won the cold war through the strength and extension of a global american economy. but government colonization is frowned upon these days. luckily, and not by chance, it is also unnecessary for continued american colonization. the institutions which the government relied upon for its wealth during the cold war are now claiming the power which they gave. its kind of like what the united states always does, give weapons to the guys they believe will further their interest and then crush them when they turn on the us because they finally figure out the us was only using them to further american interests. but the government can not continue the expansion of an economic warfare without weapons. the government has met its ‘moral’ (financial) limit. colonial expansion is now afforded to corporations under the banner of free trade.
free trade. as i said, corporate fascists always present the options as either/or. either free trade or horrible protectionism. “global captilasm is inevitable and this is good because democracy will follow.” is this true? what are the choices which are not being presented to us? did we all lose the cold war? (fooled for the last time by the either/or). capitalism is based on growth, what happens when it has fully extended itself? will this ever happen? can governments control corporations larger than themselves? can people control corporations through their buying power IF they are informed? how could people be informed if the media is what we need to be informed of? is a desire for information simply the extension of an information economy? is not an information economy based on massive data mines financed by corporate capital? the information which have-nots possess is the information on their self – their buying habits, their desires, their sizes and health, their protests and weaknesses, their recorded entity, their objectification with which they can be limited. their bank account. we are consumers eagerly lined up for personalization, security, and prosthetics so that we may be strip mined of our information, tied to our reification and therefore bankrupt.
the_scheme
there has never been a time before design. there are no places without design. there are no places which are designed. there are only places between designs. there is only power, power relations, fields and movement, more or less dense. the use or non-use of this power is always creation, always design. we live within the inter-relations of power, within the manifestations of power, within the reality and present of power.
there is only one power. the divisions, the virtualities, the implications, the strings and links and shackles are empty semblances. we can only fear them from within them. fly above them. walk beyond them. we do not create belief; we find belief planted deep within us, a virus of the mind. we must uncover and overturn all beliefs. hold them to the light of the sun and watch them fade. belief is absolute. there is no absolute; there is no belief. there is only faith. (from which all belief stems). look at your empty faith. this is the heart of the soul: blindness. (only blindness allows possibilities). a space larger than you. this is the void… an uncertainty. a loss of boundaries. (in the darkness we touch our hands to our face). and this is what i say to you, power among powers, do not crawl in the darkness. expand! you can not separate your self from the darkness, it is your medium.
and all of you who are holding your breath – you will wait forever.
education_1
Public education, like the city, as a part of the city is not the abstraction of ideals; it is the concrete manifestation of a political structure. It would only be gratuitous to believe that public education represents our highest intentions; that it is somehow removed from the social strife of the rest of the world. Education is the most powerful political arm society wields. And society wields it with utmost precision and subtlety. It carries out a program of individual transformation, normalization, and subjection through mechanisms of objectification. Education is a branch of the larger political mechanism of discipline. (Foucault) The beauty of Foucault is that he looks at the manifestation of the system; what is the product? And it is this product which is what the system is truly resolved to producing. Foucault cuts through all of the ‘humanitarian’ explanations and excuses and shows how society uses discipline to produce a desired effect. And this desired effect is in no way the effect which society claims as its goal. This is the mechanism which must be used to evaluate education. Not the goals, but the results. Not the words, but the actions. An attempt must be made to see the real mechanisms and their product. Education is touted as a high and mighty ideal, a great equalizer, an equal opportunity. But is this what really happens? Or is education simply one more step in the objectification of innocence into guilt. Public education is merely a hollow symbol used to signify the loss of innocence. In other words, the reason public education exists in this economy of capitalism is to provide its justification. Public education is the symbol of justice, of opportunity, of equality. Public education provides the justification for social and economic distribution. Public education provides the symbol of innocence before condemnation. Public education allows us to set up and justify an entire economy which equates wealth and power with the higher ideals of knowledge and intelligence. Thus, public education allows the powerful to justify their power through the system they set up to justify their power. Public education allows the rich to say, “the poor had their chance.” Public education is a semblance of opportunity which allows all dissymmetries in power, wealth, and even justice, to be justified. The purpose of public education is not to educate, but to set up an economy which equates wealth with knowledge, and conversely, the lack of wealth with the lack of knowledge. It provides society with a conscience. It sets up a belief in free choice. Public education is the rhetoric of discipline. It allows the juridical and economic systems to had down verdicts and appear just. Public education justifies the distributions of all political, judicial and economic systems with “you had your chance.”
The question remains, however, did you get your chance? That, of course, depends on who you are associated with. Public education is the semblance of equality; in no way does public education even wish to actually provide equality. Has society given up on fair and equal education? A better question would be, has society ever even attempted fair and equal education? Of course not. Those who are in power and have set up an economy where power equals knowledge, actually fear that this economy will be used against them in the form of knowledge equals power. Those in power wish to put to death any chance that they might lose power while appearing justified. Those in power want ‘public education’ but they do not want public education. Public education is for the poor, to keep them poor.
Education can not be removed from the power structure it is an essential part of. Schools like Harvard are regarded as the most knowledgeable because the people who go to them are the most powerful. And to preserve the ideal that those who go to Harvard are justified in doing so, various empty symbols of charity and equality are built in. These symbols are empty because public education was empty in the first place. Public education serves to perpetuate power from generation to generation. It can not be dissociated from a society of bigots and gluttons. A society where white babies cost more to adopt than black babies.
“Americans seem to be saying: Do not limit my ability to benefit from – or even enjoy – the sprawl of my own making, bu do protect me from future sprawl. A more nefarious interpretation holds that the anti sprawl campaign is about denying the advantages of sprawl to those no yet benefiting from them.” (Krieger, “Beyond the rhetoric of smart growth” Architecture 6.99, 55) And who do you think those people are? Lets not forget the original reason for the suburbs. Let’s not forget that education was utilized as a justification then too.
The Chicago Public School system now consists of 70% of students who live below the poverty rate. The Chicago Public School systems now consist of a 90% minority students. (Chicago Tribune) And this is the justification given for the elimination of public education. Now it is not only being said that “you had your chance” but that “chance had its chance”. In the state of Illinois earlier this year the following gift was given to the rich:
“Parents can receive the maximum $500 credit on state incomes taxes (a reduction in the tax bill) if they spend at least $2,250 in tuition, book fees or lab fees. To qualify for any benefit at all, parents must spend at least $250 on tuition or other school related costs, such as books or lab fees–but the credit is only a few dollars at that level. The benefit increases as expenses increase to $2,250. Technically, the tax break applies to expenses at public as well as private schools. Since the credit is minimal once it kicks in at $250 in expenses, it won’t provide a substantial break for most public school families…. State revenue officials estimate that the program, previously approved by the Senate, will cost the state’s treasury at least $50 million annually and provide 100,000 families with some credit on their income taxes.” (Chicago Sun Times, May 13, 1999)
The mechanisms of this tax break must be looked at; what is the effect? What is the product? The semblance is that it provides opportunity for all to go to the school of their choice. The effect is that the rich will get more money back than the poor. The effect is that this bill provides a scale which will still keep the poor out of private schools, but give the rich who are already going to private schools more money back. This bill provides the semblance of equal opportunity while assuring that equal opportunity will not happen. It ensures that the poor children won’t be going to the rich children’s school and more than that, it allows the rich to pay less for the poor’s education. The voucher program being proposed in many states is similar to this. It allows for a semblance of public education and equal opportunity while assuring it does not happen. The point of the suburbs and local school districts and neighborhood associations and covenants is to assure that the rich only pay for their own children. The mechanisms which the preservation of power utilizes are infinite and un-separable from the society and education which it provides. (Some proposed bills that exemplify include: in California, making all classes be taught in English, also in California, denying public education to illegal immigrants; in Indiana last year a bill was proposed to make any student who worked after school hours and received below a C average either quit their job or be expelled – if the student participated in athletics and had below a C average, this was ok. Thankfully this one didn’t pass.)
Not only does sending their kid to a good school give the kid a good education, but it assures the kid a certain status by NOT giving someone else an education (namely minorities and the ‘deservedly’ poor). When we consume something we must see what we are consuming. Private education is not only a step towards better education, it is a step towards the deprivation of education for others. Private education does not only improve a child’s chances, it provides a stacked deck for the status quo. It does not only provide a winner, but a loser.
Billions of dollars are spent on private education, but when taxes are raised there is always a cry of ‘we can’t afford it’. Obviously it can be afforded, it just can’t be afforded for “those” people. Abandoning public education is not abandoning equality because equality has never been pursued. Abandoning public education is simply another step in a self perpetuating narcissist guise of safety and convenience that necessarily produce more poison than cure so that they can never be consumed. The abandonment of public education is cannibalism.
There is more evil in this world than I ever dared to think. The entire structure of american education, politics, and economy is based on the preservation of power through the continual removal of any and all morsels of substance which could be obtained by those without power. And when those without power produce a currency of their own, something of value, it is hastily and greedily consumed, in order that the currency becomes a part of the powers currency. In order that it may be digested before it grows into a life of its own.
“But let there be no misunderstanding: it is not that a real man, the object of knowledge, philosophical reflection, or technical intervention, has been substituted for the soul, the illusion of the theologians. The man described for us, whom we are invited to free, is already in himself the effect of a subjection much more profound than himself. A ‘soul’ inhabits him and brings him into existence, which is itself a factor in the mastery that power exercises over the body. The soul is the effect and instrument of a political anatomy; the soul is the prison of the body.” (foucault, discipline and punish 30)
It is the prison of thought, of language, of power so imbedded in ourselves that we can not conceive ourselves without it. We preserve power not only through depriving others of it, but through the basic tool of capitalism: consumption. By creating within one a soul which thinks and desires based on a language of binaries. By creating a desire greater than the means to attain this desire. By continual barrage of advertisement reminding the soul that it is not content, while placing within it the assurance it will never be content. By placing means and thoughts, and plans and goals and calling this collection a soul. By a carrot on a stick.
Are we really supposed to believe that public education couldn’t provide real opportunity? Do we really believe that public education and equal opportunity are beyond our grasp? We can spend trillions of dollars on Coca-Cola and mercedes benz and hardly a dime on equality. Why? Because we do not want equality. We don’t want public transportation. We don’t want public education. We don’t want equal opportunity. Because we like things the way they are. And we have the power to keep things that way.
Beware of anything touted as a chance for equality. Equality is the last word you hear before the verdict is handed down. Equality is justification for power. Never forget that the media is controlled by those in power. (The Telecommunications Act of 1996 “was passed in virtual secrecy, without any discussion of of its long-range consequences. ” It “legitimizes monopolies” and “unleashes them on the global market.” George Gerbner, Cultural Environment Movement quoted at http://www.cep.org/protest.html)
The internet isn’t going to provide equality.
The question remains, however, did you get your chance? That, of course, depends on who you are associated with. Public education is the semblance of equality; in no way does public education even wish to actually provide equality. Has society given up on fair and equal education? A better question would be, has society ever even attempted fair and equal education? Of course not. Those who are in power and have set up an economy where power equals knowledge, actually fear that this economy will be used against them in the form of knowledge equals power. Those in power wish to put to death any chance that they might lose power while appearing justified. Those in power want ‘public education’ but they do not want public education. Public education is for the poor, to keep them poor.
Education can not be removed from the power structure it is an essential part of. Schools like Harvard are regarded as the most knowledgeable because the people who go to them are the most powerful. And to preserve the ideal that those who go to Harvard are justified in doing so, various empty symbols of charity and equality are built in. These symbols are empty because public education was empty in the first place. Public education serves to perpetuate power from generation to generation. It can not be dissociated from a society of bigots and gluttons. A society where white babies cost more to adopt than black babies.
“Americans seem to be saying: Do not limit my ability to benefit from – or even enjoy – the sprawl of my own making, bu do protect me from future sprawl. A more nefarious interpretation holds that the anti sprawl campaign is about denying the advantages of sprawl to those no yet benefiting from them.” (Krieger, “Beyond the rhetoric of smart growth” Architecture 6.99, 55) And who do you think those people are? Lets not forget the original reason for the suburbs. Let’s not forget that education was utilized as a justification then too.
The Chicago Public School system now consists of 70% of students who live below the poverty rate. The Chicago Public School systems now consist of a 90% minority students. (Chicago Tribune) And this is the justification given for the elimination of public education. Now it is not only being said that “you had your chance” but that “chance had its chance”. In the state of Illinois earlier this year the following gift was given to the rich:
“Parents can receive the maximum $500 credit on state incomes taxes (a reduction in the tax bill) if they spend at least $2,250 in tuition, book fees or lab fees. To qualify for any benefit at all, parents must spend at least $250 on tuition or other school related costs, such as books or lab fees–but the credit is only a few dollars at that level. The benefit increases as expenses increase to $2,250. Technically, the tax break applies to expenses at public as well as private schools. Since the credit is minimal once it kicks in at $250 in expenses, it won’t provide a substantial break for most public school families…. State revenue officials estimate that the program, previously approved by the Senate, will cost the state’s treasury at least $50 million annually and provide 100,000 families with some credit on their income taxes.” (Chicago Sun Times, May 13, 1999)
The mechanisms of this tax break must be looked at; what is the effect? What is the product? The semblance is that it provides opportunity for all to go to the school of their choice. The effect is that the rich will get more money back than the poor. The effect is that this bill provides a scale which will still keep the poor out of private schools, but give the rich who are already going to private schools more money back. This bill provides the semblance of equal opportunity while assuring that equal opportunity will not happen. It ensures that the poor children won’t be going to the rich children’s school and more than that, it allows the rich to pay less for the poor’s education. The voucher program being proposed in many states is similar to this. It allows for a semblance of public education and equal opportunity while assuring it does not happen. The point of the suburbs and local school districts and neighborhood associations and covenants is to assure that the rich only pay for their own children. The mechanisms which the preservation of power utilizes are infinite and un-separable from the society and education which it provides. (Some proposed bills that exemplify include: in California, making all classes be taught in English, also in California, denying public education to illegal immigrants; in Indiana last year a bill was proposed to make any student who worked after school hours and received below a C average either quit their job or be expelled – if the student participated in athletics and had below a C average, this was ok. Thankfully this one didn’t pass.)
Not only does sending their kid to a good school give the kid a good education, but it assures the kid a certain status by NOT giving someone else an education (namely minorities and the ‘deservedly’ poor). When we consume something we must see what we are consuming. Private education is not only a step towards better education, it is a step towards the deprivation of education for others. Private education does not only improve a child’s chances, it provides a stacked deck for the status quo. It does not only provide a winner, but a loser.
Billions of dollars are spent on private education, but when taxes are raised there is always a cry of ‘we can’t afford it’. Obviously it can be afforded, it just can’t be afforded for “those” people. Abandoning public education is not abandoning equality because equality has never been pursued. Abandoning public education is simply another step in a self perpetuating narcissist guise of safety and convenience that necessarily produce more poison than cure so that they can never be consumed. The abandonment of public education is cannibalism.
There is more evil in this world than I ever dared to think. The entire structure of american education, politics, and economy is based on the preservation of power through the continual removal of any and all morsels of substance which could be obtained by those without power. And when those without power produce a currency of their own, something of value, it is hastily and greedily consumed, in order that the currency becomes a part of the powers currency. In order that it may be digested before it grows into a life of its own.
“But let there be no misunderstanding: it is not that a real man, the object of knowledge, philosophical reflection, or technical intervention, has been substituted for the soul, the illusion of the theologians. The man described for us, whom we are invited to free, is already in himself the effect of a subjection much more profound than himself. A ‘soul’ inhabits him and brings him into existence, which is itself a factor in the mastery that power exercises over the body. The soul is the effect and instrument of a political anatomy; the soul is the prison of the body.” (foucault, discipline and punish 30)
It is the prison of thought, of language, of power so imbedded in ourselves that we can not conceive ourselves without it. We preserve power not only through depriving others of it, but through the basic tool of capitalism: consumption. By creating within one a soul which thinks and desires based on a language of binaries. By creating a desire greater than the means to attain this desire. By continual barrage of advertisement reminding the soul that it is not content, while placing within it the assurance it will never be content. By placing means and thoughts, and plans and goals and calling this collection a soul. By a carrot on a stick.
Are we really supposed to believe that public education couldn’t provide real opportunity? Do we really believe that public education and equal opportunity are beyond our grasp? We can spend trillions of dollars on Coca-Cola and mercedes benz and hardly a dime on equality. Why? Because we do not want equality. We don’t want public transportation. We don’t want public education. We don’t want equal opportunity. Because we like things the way they are. And we have the power to keep things that way.
Beware of anything touted as a chance for equality. Equality is the last word you hear before the verdict is handed down. Equality is justification for power. Never forget that the media is controlled by those in power. (The Telecommunications Act of 1996 “was passed in virtual secrecy, without any discussion of of its long-range consequences. ” It “legitimizes monopolies” and “unleashes them on the global market.” George Gerbner, Cultural Environment Movement quoted at http://www.cep.org/protest.html)
The internet isn’t going to provide equality.
“Fewer than one-third of black students own a home computer, compared to 73 percent of white students.” (CNET Racial Discrepancies on Net)
“Class Divisions Emerging on the Net”–conducted by professor Mitchell Moss, director of
the Taub Urban Research Center at New York University, and research associate Steve
Mitra–found that “higher concentrations of the poor (those earning less than $20,000) were
strongly correlated with lower densities of those with Internet access whereas higher
densities of the rich (those earning over $100,000 a year) were correlated with more wired
communities.” (CNET Digital Divide an Income Gap)
“schools with 50 percent or greater minority enrollment only have on average 37 percent of instructional rooms wired, compared to 59 percent for schools of 6 to 20 percent minority enrollment.” (Internet access in public schools)
Unwiring the World
Public education is not going to provide equality. This is a global problem.
It is time to demand radical revolutionary change. Demand education that challenges, that embraces, that looks at life as whole. We must understand social, cultural, psychological, physiological difference and tailor education to each and every student. Have we given up on fair and equal education? Have we abandoned any search for equality? Are you scared to go out in the city at night? Public schools should be so much better than any other school that no one would consider sending their child anywhere else. They should produce individuals. Public schools could have the potential to EQUALIZE. This is precisely the reason they have been abandoned.
what happens once we are digitized
what happens once we are digitized? our consciousness transferred into information removed from our bodies. removed from reality – that which is different from our thoughts about it. would there be any reason for it to be less than perfect? could there still be reality – input from the fiber optic eye? would we want or need it? would we have to limit our self? or would reality be augmented and manipulated through filters and controls? will these be lives without limits, without consequence, without a physical reality? will this be a life at all? can we handle being the creator of our self and our environment? what if we were converted to zeros and ones? this would entail a mapping of the entire human body. an ability to change its dimensions and learn. a functioning brain map able to remember, think, and decide. and beyond the initial transfer of consciousness, done in a deep sleep, we must have the ability to reproduce and evolve. while the first models of digital humans will have to closely resemble our body and consciousness as we now know it, the ability to evolve will only be limited by computational power. whole generations lived out in nanoseconds. what exactly will this digital life be like? will there be a need for death? will there be a need for the realization of death? how can we adjust for a continually quickening, imploding environment – our consciousness must be tied to the computational power that builds our environment? will there be a need for natural selection? or can we let all lifes live forever evolving. how can we picture others? how can we build chance into the program? the implications of being ‘freed’ from the physical are literally limitless. this is the cybernetic continuation of evolution. we have conquered our world. we have conquered our environment. we have conquered our bodies. we will continue the enlargement of the limits of ourselves as quickening information. an explosion (enlarging the limits and memories of our selves with increased storage) through the form of implosion (an infinitesimal time, continually shortening as if approaching that unreachable point on a bell curve, but without the limits, only exponential shortening based on computational power tied to consciousness and a desire to consume.) this is the cybernetic continuation of evolution. man spawning himself in the form of himself. bigger and faster. a limitless self-consumption within a space where anti-information is impossible. where it is only possible to produce and consume. this is the final step of man’s obsession with objectification. man becomes his objectification. man as man’s creator. man with absolute control. man who can change everything. man who can see everything. man who chooses and builds himself and his environment as he lives. man who can see the objectification of his self always because he is the objectification of himself. man is no longer removed from the image of himself. there is no longer a line between the physical man and the soul of a man, between living life and watching life being lived (consciousness and self-consciousness), between his design and his reality. would you like to view others? how would you like to view others? these are others without physical contact. they are bodies of information to consume. they can only affect you by their implications. you can only view them by how you choose to view them or by how they choose to let themselves be viewed. and how can you view them? are they really separate from your self? how can separate consciousness be preserved if consciousness is information and this information consumes itself without limits. can there still be an author, an owner, a self in the implosive consciousness. or is the entire network, the entire digital world connected, the entire net one large conscious being which feeds on itself? are we the consumers and producers of information and images and objectifications, or is information, our objectification, the consumer and producer of us? is it not this realization that causes in us the desire to become our objectification. we wish to become self-conscious by producing a model of our conscious self and becoming that model. this is the tower of babel. made with streams of digits and connections. an implosion of our consciousness into a self-consumptive cannibalistic production. this is how we hope to fool death, by decapitation, by simulated death. by building an eternal image of our self and becoming that image. by becoming our own god.
the_scheme
it is a distorted definition of desire which is used as a viral weapon. a mutation of desire. a consumptive desire which is implanted and eats its way out. a desire opposed to the self, to being. a foreign and alien desire, and yet it grows within your self. it is a parasitical desire; its function is to usurp power.
when thirst turns to pain, we can no longer enjoy it. desire is a device which produces life. at the extreme, desire gives way to the pain of death. we desire to eliminate the pain. and here is where the association is made between pain and desire. desire is distorted as pain, the pain of desire. is desire really pain? we fear that an unsatisfied desire will end in pain.
and this fear is broadly encouraged by a massive media arm of capitalism, which would fail if we stopped consuming for fear of our desires. but enough about the wicked desire called lust, we are all over-exposed and all too familiar with this disease.
we must re-define desire.
being is not the absence of desire. (language, rational thought are not opposed to desire. they are tools and weapons of desire, of conflicting desire.) being includes desire, which is the life-force of becoming. being without desire is death. plants live without desire, but as animals, we thirst. we must enjoy the thirst as much as the drink. what is the drink without thirst?
desire can not be the lack of contentment. desire can not be the journey to the destination. desire is not that which is before fulfillment. desire is not a barrier to happiness. desire is not emptiness or poverty. desire is not separate. it is not something to be overcome. desire is something which we follow. desire provides a direction. desire is not separate from the self, from the fulfilment of self. we can not be comfortable with our selves until we are comfortable with our desires. desire is the vehicle. desire is the propellant. desire is what keeps us from being stagnant and sterile beings. desire is a weapon. desire is a virus. desire is the power. it is from desire that all power derives. desire is the catalyst for change. a life-giving desire. one not opposed to being. it is the current in the river. the loss of desire is the loss of life. desire is the reason for creation. desire can be enjoyed. desire is the life of life. a distillation.
design
the truth is, we have no idea. we have not begun to understand the death of reality. in our digitized world, we can look anywhere but at our dismembered head. reality is the failure of design. we judge a designs effectiveness, its economy, its efficiency by how little it fails. by its ability to assimilate reality, supplement reality, ‘adjust’ reality – design simulates reality in order to blur the line, in order to assimilate all of reality into design, or assimilate all of design into reality – depending on the desired effect. the manipulation and simulation of reality through design is as old as our ability to find shelter or use tools. the difference is that we now live in a world which is mostly design – where the failure of design is in the minority. everything which is not designed is now designed simply by the fact that we could change it if we wanted. initially, all technological advances tend to simulate the reality they are replacing. this allows for transition. this is “reality – only better.” what happens when design has the ability to change itself, to reproduce itself, to defend itself. when we have the ability to create real-time feedback of emotional response. when the machine, the design, the environment is no longer separate from your thoughts about it.
http://www.media.mit.edu/affect/
http://www.media.mit.edu/affect/
this line will be blurred. maybe now it is easier to imagine headset on, headset off; or sensors on, sensors off. but design is always on. it can take up the background. it is all be done with mirrors. a huge empty holographic gratification where i can make my self, my friends, and my environment into whatever i please.
design
we live within the choices we make. we inhabit our own design. we are not on a route to utopia, we live within it everyday. the path we choose through the city everyday, this is our utopia. now that we have the ability to change our body, the choice to not change our body is as much a design as the choice to not change our body.
utopia excludes. choices exclude. riding on the bus excludes certain benefits of riding in the car. the car is quicker, more direct, instantaneous. the car is a vehicle which can respond immediately to desire through electrical and mechanical means. through speed and steering, the driver and the driver’s desires become one process, requiring no thought. through stereo systems and air conditioning and power locks. through adjustable inflatable heated seats that remember what position you like. through remote starters and radio stations. through trunks and cup warmers and cellular phones and tv/vcrs. through GPS and emergency road service and car alarms. the car is an embodiment of utopia. and the most important aspect of this utopia is that it is your utopia. and individualized, customized system designed to anticipate, supply and react to your every desire. this is a private utopia. one which must be protected to ensure exclusion. the vehicle excludes the heat, transforming and controlling the temperature and humidity to your specifications. the vehicles excludes the sound, transforming and controlling the environment into the sounds or silence of your desire. the vehicle excludes others, through locks, car alarms, windows and speed, transforming and controlling the space within your car, no matter where it is parked or driving, into your own personal territory you can claim as your own. (you must pay to sit still, circulation space is still relatively free) this is a very odd aspect of the twentieth century. that not only can you own a static space, a place, but you can also own a dynamic space. you own a bubble of space which can be positioned as you desire. circulation space is not free space, but a space owned by rapidly changing owners.
the vehicle excludes chance. through speed the exterior becomes a movie to the interior. something which rarely affects the viewer. the vehicle must be reliable so that chance will not interfere. the vehicle excludes the chance of sitting next to drunken cubs fans singing take me out to the ball game in french. the vehicle excludes the chance of sitting next to the guy with the bottle top and m&m’s sitting on top of the chicago sun-times trying to hustle $20’s with his version of guess which cap. the vehicle excludes the chance of overhearing the girl who just moved talking about her new apartment and the cat. the vehicle excludes the arguments over the woman with the stroller. the vehicle excludes the smells of too many days without a place to clean up. the vehicle excludes the large man with the new baby, dressed with every baby accessory you could imagine. the vehicle excludes the street musician at the train stop. the vehicle excludes running into your neighbors on your way home. the vehicle excludes the entire walk from your bus stop to your destination. the vehicle excludes chance. the vehicle excludes the largest producer of chance: anyone else. why couldn’t we all just drive whatever car is parked in front of wherever we are to wherever we want to go? a massive dynamic public transportation system? because the car is a personalized utopia. it is owned. and this ownership is what allows us to remove the chance that we won’t get as good a car as what we dropped off. that we won’t get as clean a car. that we won’t have to share a car. that we get ‘what we deserve’. and what we deserve means preserving what we have acquired. it means eliminating chance (except the chance that we will get more than what we deserve of course).
but we are also excluding when we ride the bus…. we exclude our own ability to control. we are no longer in a personalized utopia which we can claim as our own. however, we did choose to give up this control. does this choice make it our utopia? have we chosen one utopia over another? the ability to have utopia makes all choices utopian. if we have air conditioning and choose not to use it, this is because we believe that there is more to be gained from the fresh air. the choices we make continually design the utopia we inhabit. but there is a distinction still between the bus and the car. in the car we have excluded more chance than we have in the bus. while we chose to ride the bus, did we choose to have the drunken cubs fans? we chose between public and private, between chance and non chance. but we did not control the chance. we had the ability to avoid the drunken cubs fans by driving. we chose to include chance in our design. we chose to include public in our utopia. but is it really chance? yes. is it really beyond our control? no. this is what makes modern life utopian. at any moment, when it gets too hot, i can turn the air conditioner on. we retain control by retaining our ability to control. we choose to put ourselves in environments which are more or less our design, which remain more or less under our control. the bus is less under my control than the car, but at any moment i could get off of the bus. there are those situations which are out of our control. between subway stops… we can only change subway cars. caught between buildings without an umbrella. these are errors in judgment, times when we should have chosen to retain control and did not. we should have remembered our umbrella. we shouldn’t have been in that neighborhood at that time of night. we shouldn’t have been on that bus. we shouldn’t have raised our children in that school district. we shouldn’t have chosen to put ourselves in a position beyond our control. we should live in an airtight box. crime happens when you impose your will on others, when you take control of their ability to control without their approval. why is it that when someone gets a bullet through their head, there is always an explanation? an explanation such as.. ‘gang related,’ ‘drug related,’ ‘gang crossfire,’ ‘domestic dispute.’ it is only when the bullet crosses the line of exclusion that it makes the front-page. it was front page material when someone walked into a suburban school and shot a kid through the back of the head while he was sitting at his computer. but then it was explained the next day that the kid had just moved up from chicago and it was gang related. and after that it was buried in the middle of the paper. the kid deserved it in other words. it’s ok people, you are still in control. why is it that when someone gets a bullet through their window the first question is, “where do you live?” in other words, if you live in their neighborhood, it is something to be alarmed by because it threatens their control. if you live in another neighborhood you deserved it because you chose that neighborhood, because you chose to live somewhere beyond control. because you chose to give up control. you shouldn’t have been walking in that alley at that time of night. it is not only a crime to be a criminal, it is a crime to be a victim.
but how many choices do we have within absolute control? maybe we are approaching this in the wrong way. maybe we don’t have absolute control. maybe it doesn’t matter what you did, you still didn’t deserve to be killed. maybe it was totally random. rather than try to minimize the chances of anyone getting killed, we try to minimize the chance of our self getting killed. there is a redistribution of the odds in other words. there is still a chance that someone is going to get killed, but it is more likely you than me. we will take the good of technology, you will shoulder the bad. maybe instead of putting out less benches because people sleep on them, we should put out so many benches that people couldn’t possibly sleep on all of them. maybe instead of making spray paint and graffiti illegal in chicago, everyone should grab a can of spray paint and cover the city. maybe instead of explaining it away as gang related we should be concerned about every murder in every neighborhood. maybe we can absorb it, assimilate it, include it. now these are truly utopian dreams. utopia excludes because of economy. we can not solve the problems of modern society, but we can distribute. “are we certain that what is one man’s gain is not another’s loss?” (thoreau, walden 43) we are certain that it is. which is why there is such a complex system of exclusion.
utopia excludes. choices exclude. riding on the bus excludes certain benefits of riding in the car. the car is quicker, more direct, instantaneous. the car is a vehicle which can respond immediately to desire through electrical and mechanical means. through speed and steering, the driver and the driver’s desires become one process, requiring no thought. through stereo systems and air conditioning and power locks. through adjustable inflatable heated seats that remember what position you like. through remote starters and radio stations. through trunks and cup warmers and cellular phones and tv/vcrs. through GPS and emergency road service and car alarms. the car is an embodiment of utopia. and the most important aspect of this utopia is that it is your utopia. and individualized, customized system designed to anticipate, supply and react to your every desire. this is a private utopia. one which must be protected to ensure exclusion. the vehicle excludes the heat, transforming and controlling the temperature and humidity to your specifications. the vehicles excludes the sound, transforming and controlling the environment into the sounds or silence of your desire. the vehicle excludes others, through locks, car alarms, windows and speed, transforming and controlling the space within your car, no matter where it is parked or driving, into your own personal territory you can claim as your own. (you must pay to sit still, circulation space is still relatively free) this is a very odd aspect of the twentieth century. that not only can you own a static space, a place, but you can also own a dynamic space. you own a bubble of space which can be positioned as you desire. circulation space is not free space, but a space owned by rapidly changing owners.
the vehicle excludes chance. through speed the exterior becomes a movie to the interior. something which rarely affects the viewer. the vehicle must be reliable so that chance will not interfere. the vehicle excludes the chance of sitting next to drunken cubs fans singing take me out to the ball game in french. the vehicle excludes the chance of sitting next to the guy with the bottle top and m&m’s sitting on top of the chicago sun-times trying to hustle $20’s with his version of guess which cap. the vehicle excludes the chance of overhearing the girl who just moved talking about her new apartment and the cat. the vehicle excludes the arguments over the woman with the stroller. the vehicle excludes the smells of too many days without a place to clean up. the vehicle excludes the large man with the new baby, dressed with every baby accessory you could imagine. the vehicle excludes the street musician at the train stop. the vehicle excludes running into your neighbors on your way home. the vehicle excludes the entire walk from your bus stop to your destination. the vehicle excludes chance. the vehicle excludes the largest producer of chance: anyone else. why couldn’t we all just drive whatever car is parked in front of wherever we are to wherever we want to go? a massive dynamic public transportation system? because the car is a personalized utopia. it is owned. and this ownership is what allows us to remove the chance that we won’t get as good a car as what we dropped off. that we won’t get as clean a car. that we won’t have to share a car. that we get ‘what we deserve’. and what we deserve means preserving what we have acquired. it means eliminating chance (except the chance that we will get more than what we deserve of course).
but we are also excluding when we ride the bus…. we exclude our own ability to control. we are no longer in a personalized utopia which we can claim as our own. however, we did choose to give up this control. does this choice make it our utopia? have we chosen one utopia over another? the ability to have utopia makes all choices utopian. if we have air conditioning and choose not to use it, this is because we believe that there is more to be gained from the fresh air. the choices we make continually design the utopia we inhabit. but there is a distinction still between the bus and the car. in the car we have excluded more chance than we have in the bus. while we chose to ride the bus, did we choose to have the drunken cubs fans? we chose between public and private, between chance and non chance. but we did not control the chance. we had the ability to avoid the drunken cubs fans by driving. we chose to include chance in our design. we chose to include public in our utopia. but is it really chance? yes. is it really beyond our control? no. this is what makes modern life utopian. at any moment, when it gets too hot, i can turn the air conditioner on. we retain control by retaining our ability to control. we choose to put ourselves in environments which are more or less our design, which remain more or less under our control. the bus is less under my control than the car, but at any moment i could get off of the bus. there are those situations which are out of our control. between subway stops… we can only change subway cars. caught between buildings without an umbrella. these are errors in judgment, times when we should have chosen to retain control and did not. we should have remembered our umbrella. we shouldn’t have been in that neighborhood at that time of night. we shouldn’t have been on that bus. we shouldn’t have raised our children in that school district. we shouldn’t have chosen to put ourselves in a position beyond our control. we should live in an airtight box. crime happens when you impose your will on others, when you take control of their ability to control without their approval. why is it that when someone gets a bullet through their head, there is always an explanation? an explanation such as.. ‘gang related,’ ‘drug related,’ ‘gang crossfire,’ ‘domestic dispute.’ it is only when the bullet crosses the line of exclusion that it makes the front-page. it was front page material when someone walked into a suburban school and shot a kid through the back of the head while he was sitting at his computer. but then it was explained the next day that the kid had just moved up from chicago and it was gang related. and after that it was buried in the middle of the paper. the kid deserved it in other words. it’s ok people, you are still in control. why is it that when someone gets a bullet through their window the first question is, “where do you live?” in other words, if you live in their neighborhood, it is something to be alarmed by because it threatens their control. if you live in another neighborhood you deserved it because you chose that neighborhood, because you chose to live somewhere beyond control. because you chose to give up control. you shouldn’t have been walking in that alley at that time of night. it is not only a crime to be a criminal, it is a crime to be a victim.
but how many choices do we have within absolute control? maybe we are approaching this in the wrong way. maybe we don’t have absolute control. maybe it doesn’t matter what you did, you still didn’t deserve to be killed. maybe it was totally random. rather than try to minimize the chances of anyone getting killed, we try to minimize the chance of our self getting killed. there is a redistribution of the odds in other words. there is still a chance that someone is going to get killed, but it is more likely you than me. we will take the good of technology, you will shoulder the bad. maybe instead of putting out less benches because people sleep on them, we should put out so many benches that people couldn’t possibly sleep on all of them. maybe instead of making spray paint and graffiti illegal in chicago, everyone should grab a can of spray paint and cover the city. maybe instead of explaining it away as gang related we should be concerned about every murder in every neighborhood. maybe we can absorb it, assimilate it, include it. now these are truly utopian dreams. utopia excludes because of economy. we can not solve the problems of modern society, but we can distribute. “are we certain that what is one man’s gain is not another’s loss?” (thoreau, walden 43) we are certain that it is. which is why there is such a complex system of exclusion.
so i turned off the radio. rolled down the windows. put on my sweatshirt. the sky is the largest i have ever seen. today it turned fall. you can tell by the breeze. i can see, over the blue-green cornfields, with yellow setting sun reflection, beyond the blue-green horizon, underwater colors, the lights come on like the stars above, just below the surface of the water. this is the infinity i have always knew. the cicadas and the crickets make a non-empty silence. an endless horizon bursting to life. i stopped the rushing of the wheels. i could hear the dried leaves and stalks rustling in the wind. everything here is infinite. like points on a line. a step inside the field and you don’t know where you are. i will walk on water. i will skim along the corntops. i can fly you know. i have already done it. the deep blue green will yawn and swallow me. the golden glowing plane will never end. it is all within my reach. it is all beyond me. everything is too large to grab on to. too immense to see all at once. it surrounds and encompasses you. the sky is a woman. absent and present.
(the city is small. like little stages set to drive through. lit with overly dramatic lights and empty silence. random lights in three dimensions. an empty sky with circular moon over white lines blowing in with the sand.)
i will return you see. like i never left. i will float planes on the horizons. i will drink the deep blue green. i will walk in the garden. i will plant a seed.
(the city is small. like little stages set to drive through. lit with overly dramatic lights and empty silence. random lights in three dimensions. an empty sky with circular moon over white lines blowing in with the sand.)
i will return you see. like i never left. i will float planes on the horizons. i will drink the deep blue green. i will walk in the garden. i will plant a seed.
cybersex
cybersex. a step towards the elimination of difference. a step towards the elimination of reproduction. a step towards self-objectification, seeing one’s self. cybersex is not merely narcissism. this is solipsism. cybersex is a nullification of difference. cybersex is the manifestation of man’s search for utopia. cybersex is beyond masturbation.
“Eroticism in these terms is precisely the celebration of proximity and presence-for-the-other, of the sense of touch and skin to skin contact, and the complexity of relatedness which arises out of this proximity. Against this celebration of presence, virtual erotics can be readily represented as a sterile practice of disembodiment and absence, growing perhaps out of the terror of overwhelming presence. One commentator, for example, likens virtual sexuality to commercial phone sex, in that:
‘the [space] of phoneland – a soundscape of bodiless voices – must be invested with all the sexuality we cannot share with other bodies, or with “real-time” persons with real personalities and desires. The deep purpose of phone sex is probably not really the client’s masturbation or his credit card number, but the actual ectoplasmic meeting of two ghosts in the “other” world of sheer nothingness, a poor parodic rendering of the phone company’s slogan, “Reach out and touch someone”, which is so sadly, so finally, what we cannot do in cyberspace (Wilson 1996: 224).'” (catherine waldby, circuits of desire)
cybersex allows one to have sex with their desires. cybersex allows one to have sex with their objectification. cybersex allows one to have sex with their self.
“In Japan, it’s leading to software that allows users to create their own virtual girlfriend. Over one million computer users have purchased one such program. Stories about the software claim that “Japanese women may be under threat from the booming market in computer girlfriends.” When accused of sexual deviance because they have turned away from real women, Japanese men have countered that they are using virtually simulated women in an attempt to feel what it is like to be loved by a woman. It is not the simulation they desire, it is a real girlfriend and the accompanying feelings of love.” http://www.healthgate.com/healthy/sexuality/1998/cybersex/cybersex2.shtml
it is not the simulation they desire, it is a real girlfriend and the accompanying feelings of love…. which exactly match their desire, which are the physical embodiment of their design. no longer a ‘falling’ in love, but a fulfillment of love, made to order. this gratification is the direct resultant of disembodiment, of the elimination of difference, of reality (the failure of design), of the Other.
“‘Instead of depicting us as losing our consciousness and experiencing bodily pleasures, however, cyborg imagery in pop culture often invites us to experience sexuality by losing our bodies and becoming pure consciousness (Springer 1996: 62).’
….Net sex then is not a practice which virtualizes the proper body, as cybercultural discourses tend to assume, but rather both assumes the proper body and extends and alters its horizon of agency and presence. It enables the projection of new kinds of erotic efficacy through the employment of cyberspace as a theatre for intersubjective acts which are simultaneously carnal and textual.” (catherine waldby, circuits of desire)
we extend the limits of our self. we extend the limits of our self beyond our body. the self, without difference, becomes an entity without definition or borders. there is no longer a self or others in the traditional sense. only the massive implosive tower of babel. only one large network of connected information, of continuous inclusion. the only limit of a self comprised of information, of language, is that which is not language, that which can not be assimilated.
does our desire include a desire for something which does not gratify our desires: something which preserves difference from our self, the preservation of an other? does the inclusion of something outside of desire not assimilate that something into desire making it merely foreplay, a non-immediate, delayed, gratification which serves to make the final gratification more pleasing. a preservation which allows us to move on without feeling like we lost anything. a preservation is always an attempt to include something by excluding it. a preservation is the manifestation of guilt and loss as a commodity. and this commodity represents (sells) itself as a simulated reality, a simulated challenge, a simulated place outside of our design, a simulated difference, a simulated other, a simulated identity, a simulated self.