"Indeed, the matrix of language, the Symbolic, makes us who we are. Without it, we are nothing."
First of all, thanks to Ashley for her helpful guest post. It was very very informative!
I am really interested in the idea of language making us who we are. It is funny to think about something that we created is actually really creating us. It reminds me of technology taking over in the Matrix: man-made things are controlling the world we live in, just like language.
"For Lacan, DESIRE and LANGUAGE are synonymous."
This quote really struck me. There is a void in language which we cannot fill, but have this innate desire to fill. But this is interesting, because man was created before language was, so why is this void in language giving subjects a void? Was this void still present before language? I'm not sure if this is making sense, but I am interested in this relationship between language and desire probably for the reason that it is a little confusing.
One final thing I found interesting was the idea of identity and the mirror stage:
"One only ever “asymptotically” approaches having an identity, moving towards but never quite reaching it."
This struck me because we always hear things like "struggling to find one's identity" or "i can identify with this" - when identity is something we can never really achieve. It also made me think of the ways in which we try to create an identity, for example, through Facebook. We list off our favorite movies, music, books, etc. in order to create a certain personal identity for others to see. These movies, books, and music are all things produced by someone else. They can't give us individuality or identity because they aren't ours. We cannot reach a certain identity through these things, but we always strive to do so, unable to reach it whether on Facebook, or in real life.
11/12/08
11/5/08
Mantissa & The Mirror Stage
One thing I noticed when I first began reading Mantissa, was the connection to The Mirror Stage we have talked about in class.
When Miles Green first wakes up, he is referring to himself as "it": "it was conscious of a lumious and infinite haze, as if it were floating, godlike, alpha and omega, over a sea of vapor and looking down...(3). He has no idea who he is or even what he is at this point. It seems as though he is an outsider looking down on a body he cannot identify as his own.
However, once his wife comes into the picture and begins talking to him, he begins to develop a sense of "self": "Obscurely reproached by the closer and more requiring face, it made another unwilling deduction: for some reason it was a center of attention, an I of sorts" (4). I feel as though it is here that we are getting an example of Lacan's Mirror Stage. Green begins to develop this sense of self and moves away from the somewhat "outer body experience" of referring to himself as "it". He then goes on to say: "with another painfully swift and reducing intuition it realized it was not just an I, but a male I" (4). It is at this point that Green realizes that he is a being that is separate from the rest of the world, much like the child who sees his reflection in the mirror.
When Miles Green first wakes up, he is referring to himself as "it": "it was conscious of a lumious and infinite haze, as if it were floating, godlike, alpha and omega, over a sea of vapor and looking down...(3). He has no idea who he is or even what he is at this point. It seems as though he is an outsider looking down on a body he cannot identify as his own.
However, once his wife comes into the picture and begins talking to him, he begins to develop a sense of "self": "Obscurely reproached by the closer and more requiring face, it made another unwilling deduction: for some reason it was a center of attention, an I of sorts" (4). I feel as though it is here that we are getting an example of Lacan's Mirror Stage. Green begins to develop this sense of self and moves away from the somewhat "outer body experience" of referring to himself as "it". He then goes on to say: "with another painfully swift and reducing intuition it realized it was not just an I, but a male I" (4). It is at this point that Green realizes that he is a being that is separate from the rest of the world, much like the child who sees his reflection in the mirror.
10/30/08
I have a coach bag, I got it out of a trash can in New York City for 15 bucks.
Ken Rufo's post on Baudrillard was not only super informative, but also very easy to understand - this coming for a non-experienced theorist. So, thank you to Ken for a great guest post!
One topic that is very interesting to me is Baudrillard's views of mass production. Rufo stated in his post that "the mass production of objects and the general flow of wealth is making it possible, more and more, for the people of lower classes to "simulate" living like people in the upper classes." This idea fascinated me, because the first thing I thought of, for some odd reason, was the Christmas Tree Shop. Every time I'm there, they have cute little framed artwork: water colors of a lighthouse, trees, flowers, etc. These things look fancy, but there are 20 million of the same piece right behind it. That means, potentially 20 million people will own the same painting as you. Now, chances are you probably won't go to a friend's house and see the same painting on her wall, so it makes you feel like you have a certain amount of "cultural capital" - this meaning that you appear "in the know" and a part of the upper classes when in actuality, this low-brow art is actually very "bourgeois". The same is similar with Coach handbags or Louis Vuitton wallets: many are mass produced ("fake" if you will) they are much more affordable and much more accessible for those in the lower classes, so when you buy a "fake" Coach bag, you feel as though you fit in with upper class society but, it is merely a simulated feeling that you are experiencing.
Also, Baudrillard's idea on the ways in which television media makes artificial things seem real. Like Grey's Anatomy. I've only watched the show once, maybe twice, but I've been to a hospital many more times and I can tell you it is NOTHING like the hospital in Grey's Anatomy. Same with ER. But, for someone who has never been to a hospital but watched either of these shows, they'd probably have an experience totally different, and this experience would actually be a simulation - filtered through their ideas of what a hospital on T.V. is like.
I'd like to end this post by commenting on the obituary Rufo provides for us in a comment to his blog post: OUCH.
One topic that is very interesting to me is Baudrillard's views of mass production. Rufo stated in his post that "the mass production of objects and the general flow of wealth is making it possible, more and more, for the people of lower classes to "simulate" living like people in the upper classes." This idea fascinated me, because the first thing I thought of, for some odd reason, was the Christmas Tree Shop. Every time I'm there, they have cute little framed artwork: water colors of a lighthouse, trees, flowers, etc. These things look fancy, but there are 20 million of the same piece right behind it. That means, potentially 20 million people will own the same painting as you. Now, chances are you probably won't go to a friend's house and see the same painting on her wall, so it makes you feel like you have a certain amount of "cultural capital" - this meaning that you appear "in the know" and a part of the upper classes when in actuality, this low-brow art is actually very "bourgeois". The same is similar with Coach handbags or Louis Vuitton wallets: many are mass produced ("fake" if you will) they are much more affordable and much more accessible for those in the lower classes, so when you buy a "fake" Coach bag, you feel as though you fit in with upper class society but, it is merely a simulated feeling that you are experiencing.
Also, Baudrillard's idea on the ways in which television media makes artificial things seem real. Like Grey's Anatomy. I've only watched the show once, maybe twice, but I've been to a hospital many more times and I can tell you it is NOTHING like the hospital in Grey's Anatomy. Same with ER. But, for someone who has never been to a hospital but watched either of these shows, they'd probably have an experience totally different, and this experience would actually be a simulation - filtered through their ideas of what a hospital on T.V. is like.
I'd like to end this post by commenting on the obituary Rufo provides for us in a comment to his blog post: OUCH.
10/24/08
Authorship
Barthes introduction of the "reader" is an interesting topic that, upon first reading, I misunderstood. He states that "there is one place where the multiplicity of a text is focused and that place is the reader." (189) I read it in a non post-structuralist way, and my first thought was that he meant that as readers, we each interpret this multiplicity in a different way. It is our personal experiences, our backgrounds, our education that all shape our views of the text we are reading, and this interpretation differs amongst everyone. However, after a more careful reading (and bringing in the ideas of post-structuralism) I found that this is probably not what Barthes meant. I feel as though he is trying to get at the idea that it is in fact, the author, that is influenced by all of these things (personal experiences, education, etc.) However, once the author publishes a book, or writes in his/her blog, are they still connected to it? Do these opinions really influence their opinions in their writing? Well, I think Barthes would agree that because the author existed before the text, his/her ideas, opinions, etc. are to be shown within it, because this is something he/she created.
In CultureCat's blog, I found and interesting post in which some of these ideas are discussed. She mentions Barthe, and the idea that a "text is not the product of a sole author." There are many things that contribute to their writings that they may not even recognize when writing. It seems as though we cannot trust the author because of all of these pre-existing conditions, and that the accountability of an author may decrease, something that many readers are concerned with.
In CultureCat's blog, I found and interesting post in which some of these ideas are discussed. She mentions Barthe, and the idea that a "text is not the product of a sole author." There are many things that contribute to their writings that they may not even recognize when writing. It seems as though we cannot trust the author because of all of these pre-existing conditions, and that the accountability of an author may decrease, something that many readers are concerned with.
10/15/08
Derrida + Freud = Love
I wanted to talk a little bit about Derrida's ideas on love and narcissism in relation to what we have been reading on psychoanalytic theory and Sigmund Freud.
In Derrida's film (which I am not calling a biography, because its not a biography), he mentions that love is one of the most important things to people. However, he brings up a really good point when he asks if we love someone, or something about someone? Here we see a distinct difference between the who and the what: Do we love someone because of their true being, or do we love someone because of some qualities they have? These qualities (nice, funny, smart, etc.) are things that make up a person, but they are not the being of the person. So what, or who, do we love?
Well, this question is something I find truly interesting, because when you really think about it, the things that attract you to another are these traits. So if we fall in love with someone because we like their smile, their sense of humor, and how they treat us, doesn't that just make us narcissistic? Derrida suggests that love is in fact narcissistic, because we are basing our love of someone off of how it makes us feel in return. Basically, I love this person because they treat me really well. Okay, but does that mean we are actually in love with THEM, or just in love with the feelings we receive? I think in this case, its the latter. Love does seem pretty narcissistic.
This relates pretty closely with some ideas of psychoanalytic theory that I had read. Freud believes that as children, we have no concept of other people's needs. We are concerned with just us and what is going to benefit us. If I want food you better give it to me. If you want food I don't care. This is, in a sense, narcissistic.
I also think its relevant to bring up Freud's idea about the child/mother relationship during the "odepial stage". He states that during infancy, children associate their needs (food, warmth, shelter, etc. all of which are natural instincts) with their mother. Through these needs, Freud claims sexual pleasure pleasure is received, and that the mother becomes the primary love object for the child. Basically, the child learns to love his mother through fulfilling basic instinctual needs. Therefore, this is also an example of narcissism, and goes along with Derrida's question: Do we love the 'who', or the 'what' ?
In Derrida's film (which I am not calling a biography, because its not a biography), he mentions that love is one of the most important things to people. However, he brings up a really good point when he asks if we love someone, or something about someone? Here we see a distinct difference between the who and the what: Do we love someone because of their true being, or do we love someone because of some qualities they have? These qualities (nice, funny, smart, etc.) are things that make up a person, but they are not the being of the person. So what, or who, do we love?
Well, this question is something I find truly interesting, because when you really think about it, the things that attract you to another are these traits. So if we fall in love with someone because we like their smile, their sense of humor, and how they treat us, doesn't that just make us narcissistic? Derrida suggests that love is in fact narcissistic, because we are basing our love of someone off of how it makes us feel in return. Basically, I love this person because they treat me really well. Okay, but does that mean we are actually in love with THEM, or just in love with the feelings we receive? I think in this case, its the latter. Love does seem pretty narcissistic.
This relates pretty closely with some ideas of psychoanalytic theory that I had read. Freud believes that as children, we have no concept of other people's needs. We are concerned with just us and what is going to benefit us. If I want food you better give it to me. If you want food I don't care. This is, in a sense, narcissistic.
I also think its relevant to bring up Freud's idea about the child/mother relationship during the "odepial stage". He states that during infancy, children associate their needs (food, warmth, shelter, etc. all of which are natural instincts) with their mother. Through these needs, Freud claims sexual pleasure pleasure is received, and that the mother becomes the primary love object for the child. Basically, the child learns to love his mother through fulfilling basic instinctual needs. Therefore, this is also an example of narcissism, and goes along with Derrida's question: Do we love the 'who', or the 'what' ?
10/10/08
This film is narcissistic.
It is interesting to see in Derrida's film the way in which he is depicted through images. When the camera is focused on him, sometimes there is another image (one that is completely different) of him layered on top. Sometimes Derrida's hair is messy and he's in a rush, sometimes he is completely put together. There are also a few points in the film where he is watching himself, watch himself, being interviewed on T.V.
I think this is an intentional move, in order to show the idea of multiplicity of meanings. There is no one true image of Derrida, because the image isn't the person, it is just a representation.
On this note, I found the part of the film where Derrida addresses the "Other" particularly interesting when it comes to seeing things (images, another person, etc.) He stated that the eyes and hands are 2 things on our bodies that we use so much and rely on heavily, yet we have no true image of what they are, and that other people ("Others") have a better image of these parts of our body than we do.
However, I feel as though the images that we, as others, see of Derrida still remain as just a representation that cannot get to the meaning of who he really is. At one point during the film, Derrida admits that he doesn't usually dress up like he did that day. He stated that when he is staying home, he usually doesn't get dressed, he just stays in his pajamas and robe. So, the image that we see of him dressed up and neat, isn't what he would normally look like, and he changed his image based on the film crew being there. We get a different image under different circumstances, and this representation isn't the "real" Derrida.
But, I guess these small details don't really matter in Derrida's biography. When it comes down to it, he was born, he thought, and he died.
I think this is an intentional move, in order to show the idea of multiplicity of meanings. There is no one true image of Derrida, because the image isn't the person, it is just a representation.
On this note, I found the part of the film where Derrida addresses the "Other" particularly interesting when it comes to seeing things (images, another person, etc.) He stated that the eyes and hands are 2 things on our bodies that we use so much and rely on heavily, yet we have no true image of what they are, and that other people ("Others") have a better image of these parts of our body than we do.
However, I feel as though the images that we, as others, see of Derrida still remain as just a representation that cannot get to the meaning of who he really is. At one point during the film, Derrida admits that he doesn't usually dress up like he did that day. He stated that when he is staying home, he usually doesn't get dressed, he just stays in his pajamas and robe. So, the image that we see of him dressed up and neat, isn't what he would normally look like, and he changed his image based on the film crew being there. We get a different image under different circumstances, and this representation isn't the "real" Derrida.
But, I guess these small details don't really matter in Derrida's biography. When it comes down to it, he was born, he thought, and he died.
10/1/08
Signify THIS
Saussure has been a little bit of a difficult topic for me, mostly because I wasn't in class the day we talked about it, but I'm going to see if what I've read and interpreted makes sense to anyone else. So, Saussure states that "the bond between the signifier and the signified is radically arbitrary" (pg. 35) The idea of "the sign" comes into play here, and Saussure talks about the sign being the thing that helps people make distinctions between ideas. He discusses the idea that our language as well as our thoughts are related to sound, which he then states is an arbitrary relationship and it is due to this arbitrariness that we cannot base a language system off of it. I keep reading this over and over and each time it seems to not make sense...ahhhhh. I may have to come back to this.
I think what he's trying to get at here, is that the meaning of a word is pretty much arbitrary. Words we use may in America or even Massachusetts may not be used outside of this country. I could look at a can of soda and call it "soda" but somewhere in India they may have a different name all together for soda. But who decides that's what it should be called? I think the fact that its something socially agreed upon furthers the idea that its meaning is arbitrary.
Now, as far as how our discussions of structuralism or post-structuralism deepening my thoughts on Saussure's ideas, I'm not sure if I really know. It might take a few more days for it to settle in.
I think about post-structuralists as those who complicate structuralists' ideas - or really an opposition or reaction to them. So if a structuralist would agree that meaning of words is arbitrary, for example "soda". The name of this object is something our culture has agreed upon (signifier to signified). But a post-structuralist would take the meaning of "soda" and keep defering it and pushing it back (signifier to signifier) never really getting the the "signifed".
I think what he's trying to get at here, is that the meaning of a word is pretty much arbitrary. Words we use may in America or even Massachusetts may not be used outside of this country. I could look at a can of soda and call it "soda" but somewhere in India they may have a different name all together for soda. But who decides that's what it should be called? I think the fact that its something socially agreed upon furthers the idea that its meaning is arbitrary.
Now, as far as how our discussions of structuralism or post-structuralism deepening my thoughts on Saussure's ideas, I'm not sure if I really know. It might take a few more days for it to settle in.
I think about post-structuralists as those who complicate structuralists' ideas - or really an opposition or reaction to them. So if a structuralist would agree that meaning of words is arbitrary, for example "soda". The name of this object is something our culture has agreed upon (signifier to signified). But a post-structuralist would take the meaning of "soda" and keep defering it and pushing it back (signifier to signifier) never really getting the the "signifed".
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
