Haraway, Plant, & Turkle

            The readings this week were by far the most interesting. I enjoyed the aspect of questioning one’s identity in the age of the Internet. I just want to briefly address the prompt. Of course the world be significantly different had feminist writers had been the prominent theorizers in shaping the new media. I Imagine Haraway’s world might be significantly less segregated. She states that identities are “contradictory, partial, and strategic” (Haraway, 155). Essentially, the bodies identified as white-men created a social hierarchy in which males dominate females, low melatonin levels in skin dominate higher concentrations, and so on. I suppose if the feminist dominated world had become a reality and if Freud had still been living, he might need to alter his idea that woman’s one significant contribution to society was weaving and only to “unconsciously…conceal their genitals” because they wanted to pretend to have a penis (Plant, 256). God…Freud must have been obsessed with his prince charming.

            I loved that Haraway referred to herself, and others like her, as “bodies” sharing various characteristics, such as geographical location and gender. This whole talk of cyborgs and identity reminded me of the film Ghost In the Shell. The plot centers on a cyborg named Kusanagi questioning her role in society and purpose for existence; similar to the Haraway’s own questions. The title is a metaphor for the human. The shell is the body, while the ghost is the “soul” or consciousness (which essentially represents memories). In the film is argued that DNA is nothing more than a program designed to preserve itself. Life has become more complex in the overwhelming sea of information (provided by the world wide web/Internet). And life, when organized into species, relies upon genes to be its memory system. So, man is an individual only because of his intangible memory... and memory cannot be defined, but it defines mankind. The advent of computers, and the subsequent accumulation of incalculable data have given rise to a new system of memory within the Internet. It makes me wonder if one-day computers, or whatever they might evolve into, might attain consciousness one day. After all, there is more than one element that has 4 bonding potentials. Perhaps a new non-carbon based life form will emerge from our endeavors to create machines that imitate out own behavior?

            This brings me to Turkle, who incidentally was my favorite author. In her chapter on virtuality and its discontents the discussion of identity in this highly virtual world continued. Rather than the external representation of cyborgs, Turkle uses an internal approach. She references the use of creating avatars in multi-user dungeons (MUD). For the purpose of the blog though I will refer to massively multiplayer online role-playing games (MMORPG) because the rapid rate of virtual evolution. MUD’s consist of describing a virtual reality, while MMORPG’s consist of actually seeing your avatar in a virtual reality. Is this avatar part of the individual? Turkle argues that “it is hard not to play an aspect of oneself, and virtual encounters often lead to physical ones” (Turkle, 249). If consciousness is a network or memories and emotions, then why is the virtual memory of making love to your virtual life less significant? Turkle misses this point and suggests that the only reason this behavior is not seen as maladaptive is because avatars are not paid. We have to put this into the context of our environment. We are organisms in the physical world. The virtual act of sex resulted in no offspring…in the real world…who knows maybe this hypothetical couple got pregnant. I suppose it comes down to the things you put value on.

Hayles (the Queen Honey Bees Knees) & Turner

               I think that Hayles is a genius. She is the BEES KNEES! Everything she wrote I loved. I love the metaphor of the anorexic individual who is of the mind as so disconnected from the body that he simply sees the body as an object in need of controlling. The self then, only resides in the brain. This brings me to another point she brought up in relation to the posthuman (an undistinguishable self-will from other-will). This let Hayles to state that she sometimes refers to “sleep agent” wanting to rest, while her food agent says it should go to the store (Hayles, 6). This caught my attention because of a number of fights that have occurred between my boyfriend and I. I suppose Hayles might say that it is the result of a human and posthuman intermingling (although from my perspective it is the result of someone who operates more easily from consciousness, while the other is governed by emotions). Essentially, I often try and regulate my emotions and consciously say out loud something like, “I’m being governed by my anger systems right now” or “calm down, you’re making my brain release cortisol.” For some reason, this only leads to anger. I imagine another posthuman might appreciate it, haha.

            In reference to Hayles third stage virtuality, I thoroughly enjoyed the example of “virtual ping-pong” (Hayles, 14). This immediately made me think of playing wii. Essentially, the games take place partially in the real world because we move our bodies in the same fashion; however, it also visually takes place in the virtual world. In my neuropsychology class we have read articles in relation to the fact that the same brain regions are activated when a human watches another human perform a behavior (i.e. literally watching someone perform a yoga pose in hopes of repeating it), as when they actually perform the behavior. This makes me wonder if individuals who are better at this, make better video game players.

            In this virtual world that the posthuman has created, Turner suggests that the virtual network has no epicenter like an atom does, rather it is a random network of information (Turner, 202). This entropy is evident to me, considering the fits of ADHD I’ve experienced while writing this blog. I was beginning to read Ch. 7 because it is about Wired magazine, which I love, but then I was like wait, I need to write this blog. Obviously my next step was to get back on Wired.com, on to the gamer section, where I found a game, then off to the site, then off to Amazon.com to see if they have it for mac, the to facebook, then to pictures of myself, pretend to be interested in someone else, then back to me me me. Haha…I’m tempted to fade away into oblivion now… We all get the point right? Virtual networks are ever expanding; they are born from what births them, and then become that which birthed it (Hayles, 8). I’m my own grandpa?

Hayek

               The prevailing message in The Road to Serfdom is that centralized planning is inherently undemocratic because it requires that “the will of a small minority be imposed upon the people (Hayek, 77). This can be a dangerous form of government because it limits individualism and creativity. The government essentially has the power to take money and property from individuals in pursuit of centralized goals, or the good of the community (Hayek, 82). This sounds all fine and dandy, however, is limited to the perception of the authority, which at times can be ill informed. After all, we are all humans and run the risk of human error. For example, the current leader of Libya, Muammar Gaddafi, has proclaimed (and assuredly believes) that he is doing what is best for his people. Unfortunately, as we see with the current revolution, not all agree with his political views.

            I like to think of this phenomenon in evolutionary terms. The environment naturally selects various traits that are most adaptable for the environment, as a result of random mutations. Without the variance, the organism runs the risk of going extinct. For example, the finch beak variation allows for big beaked finches to crack big seeds in times of drought, while all the other finches die out. The point is that there is variation amongst the random mutations. In a free market, the entire population is involved and allows for random insights of genius. Centralized planning hinders this process.

             Hayek also stresses the importance of the flow of information in The Use of Knowledge in Society. He asserts that a centrally planned market could never match the efficiency of the open market because any individual knows only a small fraction of all, which is known collectively (Hayek, 30). This is an interestingly true. Here I prefer the image of society as many tiny neurons, consistently communicating with one another to guide the body (or the economy). The problem here is that we are all specialized, which means that we need to communicate. The neurons in the amygdala (essentially, emotions) cant control the entire organism. Nor can the cerebral cortex (essentially, consciousness). Effective communication between both is needed for optimal functioning.

            I suppose then that I completely agree with Hayek. From my perspective, centralized planning is too risky, oppressive, and limits creativity.