Group belonging- the spread of the parasite

After reading a blog that someone posted online I felt it necessary to discuss this notion of group and the affect that it has on us each individually. I have begun to find that the term “group” is really a comforting term when one is physically represented by this notion. This simple term lifts blame or judgement off a single person and instead shares while of course diminishing the judgemental thoughts over a community, lessening the effects of the feeling of judgement one would feel or receive if they were on their own.

I thin this idea of group is responsible for many of the things we have discussed in class through the quarter. Most recently we have seen the event of the plurk picture collage take place which could not have been formed without the sense of solidarity each individual felt if they were to join the group in the collage. People in class said they did not feel compelled to take part in this collage but more so wanted to be apart of the image.

I think this is the fundamental thought behind this topic of parasites we continuously come back to. The idea of the invitation that we saw within vampires I think also applies in many ways to the spreading of the parasite. People want to become apart of this “group” in sense. As we have talked about technology and the spreading of the digital world, I have come to realize that people obviously want to be connected. If you don’t keep up with the technology the rest of the world has you begin to fade out. In order to keep ties with the “community” you want to be in contact with, you must then have the same type of equipment to make it possible.

Ultimately, one may not feel compelled to buy a computer or an iphone or have text messaging on their phone, but to think about all of the things one will miss out on if they do not engage in this “community” is the compelling factor. People want to be apart of a larger society and be connected with those around us. Much like the plurk pictures we can see that this image now brought a group of students together on a closer basis than the community of the rest of the glass, these situations bring people together which in a way I think is a large “want” that most people have

Plurk Pics!

In class on Friday we discussed the event that took place on plurk involving the “nude” pictures, or whatever we would like to refer to them as, and the word scandalous became a large part in deciphering how we should interpret the situation that was at hand.

Multiple people in the class stuck to the belief that their was nothing scandalous about the pictures of themselves with no shirts on with nothing but books in front of them. I suppose that no the picture itself may not be scandalous, but the fundamental idea behind the picture, and the intent, I would have to say is pushing more towards scandalous than taking a picture of your face and posting it on plurk.

I was in no way offended by the pictures, but to honestly try and tell people that you believe there is no scandalous behavior involved, honestly just sounds silly.

I think the most important thing to look at here is, as Tony in class said, the framing of the picture, where is the emphasis being put towards in these portraits. They are of course framing the chest, which yes in boys defense this may not be considered a private part of your body, but I think that most girls would agree in saying that it is for women. So here we have this picture, with your chest in the middle, and then being hidden behind this book. If there was nothing meant by the nakedness, or no scandalous intentions were put forth, then why not take the picture with a shirt on and the book in front of your chest?

This conversation then moved on towards “why did so many people feel they should get involved and add their picture to the group?” Not being one of the picture posters, I of course cannot answer this for them, but I honestly think that its one of those things where if someone breaks the ice, you can no longer be judged if you do it to. Especially in a circumstance like posting a topless picture of yourself, which you may have never done before, and now, long behold, there is a group giving you an excuse to do post this picture of yourself online and you will not be judged alone, for you have a large number of people all defending you on your side.

As this conversation evolved it was really interesting when a student said, it really depends on who it is who posts something of that nature, because there are some people in the class, if they would have beat this group to posting, that would have been judged in class the next day. Of course this reminds me of Bill saying “What if I had started it?” and the whole class broke out in laughter. If Bill had started this picture parasite, we would have laughed at him and talked about how crazy Bill is the entire next class period. This is so interesting to be being a sociology major, because the affect that things have on people are all dependent on who the starter or face is of the action.

I think its great how close are class has become considering what a wide range of personalities we have going on, and I really love the way this class stretches are minds to understand other peoples points of views. Its interesting whats going on and Im excited to see what happens after the quarter.

Working with the "parasite"

Today in class we Tony brought up this new phenomena of working with the parasite. This idea for some reason has never occurred to me. As obvious as this idea seems, I have yet to consider what it would be like to simply work with the parasite.

As I look at what parasites mean and the effects they cause on our lives, I have decided that parasites themselves are life. In life we constantly encounter interruptions and choose paths that may take us in a different direction that we want to go, and we may consider the events we continuously go through parasitic. From all the texts we have read through, especially Serres, I have decided that life would not be the same with out these “parasites.” Without these interruptions and unplanned encounters people would not be where they are today, and world would not have the complications that evolve in to greater success without these issues.

I believe that working with the parasite may be the best way to go about these problems. We know as humans that nothing will ever go perfect. You can plan and plan and plan and something will ultimately go wrong and interrupt our oh so perfect plans. The key to success is to I suppose allow these parasites to occur and work with them.

I think that in order for people to make it through life we have to become more flexible with these parasitic subjects that become apart of our lives. In a sense we are constantly living off things (our hosts), which really brings me back to this idea that humans are the ultimate parasite. We use everything around us to survive, and without them what would we be? For us to believe that parasites are such an interruption, and problem that interferes with our lives, we have to look at ourselves, and see where we lie in this universe in a perspective of the other. The world and everything that occupies it is fundamentally our host, and we continuously interrupt the world around us in order to make sure we as humans survive.

I think that if we all accept eachother (us and the other) as the parasite, perhaps the relationship will change, and we will no longer see one another as an interruption but instead a necessity to life, and the complexities that evolve into something greater.

Professors, the ultimate parasite

In class today we again fell in to this topic of parasites and I realized that in a students like the biggest parasite that we have seen our whole lives is teachers and professors. Throughout our entire lives we have attended school with different teacher taking different classes and I never realized that really these people ingraining knowledge in to our heads are the biggest parasites that will in actuality never ever leave us.

Ever class we take in school, we are obtaining knowledge given to us in the hands of the giver (the prof. the teacher) and they can control what we learn, what we take in, and how we use this information in our every day life. They consume our minds and then really when you think about it, they form you to think a certain way in some cases forever. If I think back to math classes, every math teacher has a way of teaching their students the best way to go about a problem that may be different from another. Yet still to this day if I practice a math problem I have ways in which my mind has been formed to complete these problems that I still stand by.

This parasite of the way we are taught things ultimately changes our perspectives on many things in the world. If a professor chooses to have a bias and spends and entire quarter persuading you subtly to believe in one thing, you are most likely going to be able to see things from this perspective. What professors choose to teach us plays a huge part in how we evolve as people, much like the parasite that takes over our emotions and our thoughts sometimes leaving us to think nothing for ourself.

I must say though in this class our thoughts are left to roam in any way possible. Conversations are so astray that I cannot say this class is parasitic, unless of course we see this form of thinking as a parasite which very well may be true. Prof. Prichard has gotten all of us to begin this thought process that inevitable drives us all nuts because we begin to think the entire world is a parasite and we continue to challenge every thought that we have ever had. So yes, I retract my statement I suppose even this, constant mind boggling class is a parasite because it is again consuming us, and causing us to think in ways that we would not normally think. The world is a parasite… and so is life! Period!

Valentines Day

As we all know by now in the course, Valentines Day is one of the most parastic days of the year. This whole day consumes us causing us to act out in these romantic ways in order to show love towards our significant other. Since this indeed stating the obvious this is not where I will be taking this blog. Instead I draw back on the discussion of love letters vs emails and an experience I encountered on Valentines Day that further proved my opionion towards what is more “touching” to receive.

Valentines Day is of course a day where millions of girls receive flowers from lovers, friends, and secret lovers perhaps. I recall in class people saying that the context of what is being said through a love letter will carry the same message as what an email would carry, I challenged this of course to say that the receiving of a physical love letter would simply mean more because its something you can touch and feel and when you read it you know that someone, some time ago, sat down and put the pen to this paper and wrote what it was that you were reading.

I received a card on valentines day with the sweetest message written within it, that was sitting on my desk when I woke up in the morning. To wake up and open this card, bring more than just what I am about to “receive” when reading what is inside. The excitement of opening it and seeing what it looks like is a whole new feeling.

Now mind you this same day, I received an email from someone very near and dear to my heart, expressing equally beautiful words. I suppose my point here is that due to this method of email, the letter was not even read on valentines day. Because my email is so backed up with SPAM and nonsense for all types of situations I literally skipped over this email that could have been a spectacular part of my day if I had received it physically, and actually have read it in time for the day it was meant for.

This is funny to me because we talked about the transformation of words and the way things are received compared to what they looked like while they were sent, and in this case the receiver received nothing in the time and context they were supposed to. So this leads me to, now what of the sender? The sender now doesn’t here back from the receiver on the day he intends do, which sends an entirely different message. This now sends the message of “she received the email, and has nothing to say.” Now the sender feels an entirely different emotion than the receiver would have ever intended to send.

I suppose for topics such as love letters/emails. A physical letter is simply more personable, maybe simply just because it is a tangible object.

I think I have caved to the world of technology.. a little

I believe that today I had an epiphany in class, it may be that I have just caved on my morals surrounding this idea of “technology” or the “digital world” but either way I think I have come to a new understanding.

As we talked in class today about written love letters vs emails, or pounding a nail in with a stone rather than a hammer, Prof. Prichard said something along the lines of

“why make things difficult. If we have access to these new and improved methods of communicating then why not use them?”

Unfortunately I must agree. I suppose what would the reason be for making our lives more difficult. We are constantly trying to find shortcuts to complete anything that needs to be done in life, so why would this be any different. I presume everyone would much rather use a hammer verse a rock, I mean lets be honest, why punish yourself. And after all, as our genius prof brought about to my mind, we are after all networking more with the world through this technological advancement. This was of course the purpose of cell phones and internet and iphones, it is to make connecting with people easier and more common. This I must agree has been successfully met. We do in fact network more now that we have these amenities at our access.

Although when I think about this idea of networking, it brings to mind what I think good old Bill said in class, where he brought up this idea of modern social interaction. This I believe is where the problem lies. The fact that now we see communication through a screen as the main source of interaction with people, cannot be an acceptable concept. To think that when you come to school and face people continuously, and don’t plan on striking up conversations is simply absurd! To completely count on your screen to cover your face while you “connect” with people is ridiculous.

It was fascinating in class to hear people say that when we are on the internet chatting are we really alone. YES!!! Physically you are ALONE! In a real social setting and a real interaction I feel like you should not be alone, thus the importance of face to face interactions.

The problem is not the advancement of technology I suppose, its where people draw their own lines for what they use it for. Networking through the internet is great! It shouldn’t be the main source of communication though when you have the option of a face to face conversation, and that’s what its becoming.

I feel like I have rambled on enough about my hatred of the impersonal interactions that take place through text, email, or plurk, and intriguingly enough I am guilty myself of all of these problems, because Prof Prichard is right. It is the simplest way to communicate and network with people. That’s simply what it is and I have accepted it for just that!

Tranformation of Words

I find that as I read The Parasite I commonly come across things that remind me of earlier work done by Derrida. This idea of interpretation and messages being sent from sender to receiver, and the transformation that takes place within these words from the time being sent to the time being received.

In The Parasite the author talks about how as soon as the “the medium” takes its place as an interference we only see so much of what is out there. In the authors words

“we only see because we see badly. It works only because it works badly. Every system is a set of messages; in order to hear the message alone, one would have to be identical to the sender.”

Not that we necessarily see badly what Derrida says about the transformation of words from sender to reciever, but the fact that this is a possibility is the coincidence. For Derrida “the medium” is the idea that the receiver is not present when the message is sent, therefore acting as an interruption in the conversation. Much like The Parasite Derrida understands that there is no way for the exact message of the sender to be received by the receiver, as The Parasite shows in the quote above, this is an impossible act unless one is sending a letter to themselves. Its clear that the interruption whether it be time, location etc. the messages become skewed.

In The Parasite the author discusses that when there is two of you, there is three. I put this in the context of Derrida seeing the subject of sending a letter being the third person (the space between the sender and receiver). Serres makes a good point that in many cases there is a third that we may not be aware of that makes all the difference when it comes to communication. This “system” of communication is never stable. We must look at it as what it is. We constantly see things from different views that others all based on this idea of interpretation. Serres says:

“the system is nonknowledge. The other side of nonknowledge. One side of nonknowledge is chaos; the other, system. Knowledge forms a bridge between two banks. Knowledge as such is a space of transformation.

This directly relates to Derrida’s concepts of the transformation of worlds. Knowledge is what allows us to distantly communicate with one another. Yet this form is not always successful, thus causing the delay of the message to transform our own words.

In The Parasite the author gives the example of the master of the home waking up to the rats feasts. He awakes and goes to find out what the noise is. When the rats here the footsteps they of course scurry off, thus the master believes, bad dream. This was not a bad dream, he did in fact hear the rats feasting, but this delay of time it took for him to reach where the rats were, causes him to change his mind about what he may have heard.

Its fascinating how quickly a message can be transformed if you really think about it. Most of the time we don’t even think that we need to think about it, much like the master and his belief the sounds he heard were a dream.

Humans! the worlds worst parasite

I continue to wonder about our discussion yesterday involving this idea of one way relationships. Its hard to think of a relationship that only one subject is receiving a benefit from, Im not sure if this relationship really exists in our world. Then I began to think that it depends on what context were looking at the relationship, and what factors there are to be considered. When I think about any kind of animal we humans use as food, I see a relationship in which we receive food from the animal, and the relationship that the animal receives shelter and food from us. So really in this type of situation I feel like I can confidently say that both are receiving some sort of benefit.

Although, then I continue on this journey of a thought and wonder, as a human, what are the intentions behind giving this animal food and shelter, and does this change the relationship that we have with them. If we are not simply giving them shelter and food to keep them alive, but instead doing it so that we will have a healthy meal in the end, does this count as a two way relationship. What is the animal really receiving at this point, besides being set up for death.

How do we know when the relationship is really benefiting both ways and there is not a selfish intention on one end of this relationship. In the parasite the author discusses this fascinating concept of the human as the parasite. We as humans never see ourselves as the parasite but when I think about life and the way that humans use things around us, we are TOTALLY the parasite. We survive off everything around us, (our host), and things are constantly changing because of what we do with them. We continuously call things that “bother” us in our lives parasites, but what are we to these “parasites.” Are we not a bother to them? Taking their lives in order for us to survive, taking their wood to build our homes, their fur to make our coats, where does it end? What is it that they are taking from us that is so important? We discussed in class things such as trash, and potentially the idea of them being around our homes, but what is it in most cases that drives us to believe they are the parasite?

This author has really made me look at humans in a way I never imagined to. We are all parasites in someones eyes. It just depends on who is looking!

The effing Ipad!

This recent discussion in class about the ipad literally was the straw that broke the camels back. Prof Prichard talked about this constant technological conversion that we see occurring in this world, and to be honest its absurd. When will it end. If we now have this awkwardly big piece of technology that people are carrying around so that they don’t have to carry a phone ipod and lap top, where does it end in terms of what we as people consider lazy.

This reminds me of Ellen Degeneres stand up, where she says the way that our society has evolved is just crazy. We have become so lazy in this world. She talks about how we no longer want to suck on tick tacks, but now have breath mint strips that simply dissolve on our tongue for us. Are we serious? I must say it all sounds better coming from the true source so:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HufW01FRheg

We don’t even realize how lazy society has become because its all that we know today, but for those of us left (not consumed by this infection of technology) its easy to see that there are of course easier ways to make things possible but do we really want this for ourselves. I feel I have exhausted this topic really, but it continues to come up and drive me crazy. I feel I am the only person in this world today who does not have an ipod. I know that if I jumped on the bandwagon I could easily fall in to the trap of not knowing what a CD is anymore, but why should we. What was so hard about changing a CD to begin with if you wanted to listen to a different artist.

This Ipad we see coming out is just a new way to combine more things together so we become even more obsessed with an object with a screen. Here is a story to show the problems these “ipads” and “iphones” are having on us as humans!:

I went to the bar with friends, and I look to my right, instead of our friend conversing with us in this social atmosphere, he is fishing on his iphone!! I said “holy shit! If you want to go fishing go fishing! He said, “Why go fishing in the cold when I can do it from a bar?”

This illustrates the problems that are evolving. We soon are going to be an obese lazy society who no longer knows how to do anything hands on because instead of real interaction in life we have these stupid iphones and ipads to do them for us! Where does it end!

Why the distant communication?

It fascinates me to see what can really be done with words, or not be done. In class on Friday we saw that communication can of course be done without the physical act of talking (silent prof.), but this is what I fear our entire society has come to. We understand now that through cell phones, computers, and text messaging, there is no real reason to physically talk with people anymore. I suppose we must understand that yes these new forms of communication are successful ways of getting our messages across, but are they most efficient.

We talk so much about how we are accepting to be misinterpreted when we write instead of speak, because we understand the context in this written communication can be drastically changed. So I suppose the question is why do we as society feel the need to talk less, personally, and is this written communication really doing the same things with words as we could be doing compared to the act of speaking.

This new method of communication is responsible for the foundation of these second personalities we see within people who have “screens” to hide themselves behind. As we discovered in class a person on plurk could be different from their blog page and different from the way they portray themselves in class. Is technology responsible for this in a way? If people only understood one way to be “real” it would be because there is only one way for them to be interpreted, causing less space for taking things out of context, or reading a person the “wrong way”. We continuously find more distant ways to communicate with people. It is now possible to text message a person through your computer. (This is hysterical- directions)

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZN7zSDLMosM

Why would you text through a computer I wonder? If you don’t have a cell phone is a phone call so far fetched that we have now created a way to enter this text-messaging world without being apart of the cell phone world? Is it because this is in fact a faster way to contact a person? If so, when did this happen? I suppose I find it interesting that people are more accepting of the possibility to be misinterpreted through written communication, than taking the time to physically speak to a person when possible, and getting things “right” the first time.

There truly is so many things we can do with words, but its strange Derrida says that words can be spoken and received with an absent receiver and the words will still reach the receiver, but is this receiver receiving what has been sent? I have decided that through this distant manner of communication, the receiver is never receiving exactly what is sent, and majority of the time I don’t feel the confusion is necessary.

What is truth? Do we underestimate it?

Recently in class we have discussed this idea of “what is truth” who are we really behind “screens” and which one of us is our real self. I find this to be a fascinating yet mind stretching phenomena. Why does this question really even exist? Why are we as individuals not the same person whether it be in person or behind screens? Are we this superficial to believe that there is no person who is the same on both levels? Perhaps we see ourselves as obtaining this trait and then project in on those around us. Of course we all have a different side to us as people, but is this necessarily something we would question our true personality over? In a sense I believe having this multiple attitudes and beliefs is in fact what makes up our true self.

When I think what is truth, I believe this concept is whatever you as a person believe it to be. Truth can be something you force yourself to believe, something that is not entirely true and is accepted as truth, or even a blatant lie that is simply believed. Truth is however a person interprets what is being told in my eyes. Someone in class talked about sterotypes and the difference between where they would place themselves and where society would place them. For a certain individual, where they are to place themselves is their truth, this is where they belong in their eyes, but what of society. If society feels they belong somewhere else, isn’t this a truth in societies perspective wherever they place this individual. The lens can change and alter what the truth is of the same situation I think, and I believe this is the key when we think about this term.

It interests me that after we read Derrida we find that ideas and words and the likes can be moved from one person to another where the receiver may be physically absent at the time the idea is trying to be relayed. From this starting point to its receivers ending point, there can be a drastic change in meaning, tone, or context. The same is true in dealing with people. As a person tries to portray themselves through blogging, plurking, facebook etc, there personalities are interrupted with misinterpretation, which is what I believe Derrida understands happens when we delay the relay of communication. This of course than brings me back to Austin who says what really are words? If there is so much room for interpretation and misguided truth, what do these words really mean, and what should they mean?

This of course brings us full circle I suppose to why communicate? We must be accepting of misinterpretation, whether this means risking being placed in the wrong stereotype or are assumed a different person behind “screens”. I like to believe that the same person is projected for me through plurk as anyone would see in class, but I wonder if this is what others think? If I had a name that had nothing to do with my own name on plurk, would the class be able to link my plurking thoughts to the thoughts and statements I make in class? This topic is unanswerable I think for me because there are number ways to look at these terms, and what the meaning overall means to anyone can be significantly different.

technology: What has it done to us

Today class discussion brought me to a new way of thinking, in the context of technology, and whether this phenomenon has a positive or negative impact on the lives of people who are “infected” with this virus of constant “connection.”

I suppose in some sense we can say this is in fact a connection, but to what, and to whom? Is this “connection” really a connection with anything beyond ourselves? In class today someone brought up that this idea of technology and video games has evolved the population in too quite the self-centered character. This I believe to be true. So with that, I ask if this connection is really a connection at all? To engage and interact with people physically is a key determinant in really connecting with a person. People say that you can equally connect with people through writing, as we hear from Derrida, but I argue if that is really the truth.

When personally interacting with a person versus a screen, you are not only understanding a person on a more personal level, but at the same time you are exercising your social skills. For children to be learning schooling techniques through computers, they are not properly developing the skills that are required in order to get to know those around you, and really be “connected” with their society. I would challenge the belief that video games or computer tools, can give you the same skills that a real one on one conversation or lesson could give.

When I think about the most important thing when it comes to meeting a person, it’s the personality they have and the way they interact with other people. Isn’t this what we base relationships off of? To enjoy spending time with a person and getting to know what there about is the crucial part. If we continuously train our children and future generations that anything they need to know they can “google” or learn through an online source or video game, people will lose the desire to interact with others, and eventually lose social skills all together. What will then become of this world if we as society no longer feel that we need relationships? Because honestly that is what we are saying when we continuously depend on the Internet and our games to show us what the world is

Response to Austin/Shrivers/context

Context seems to be a much more important term then most of us may have known. For instance today in class we saw the videos of Tom and Jerry, the whole mood/picture/feeling changes when you are told the entire story behind the clip you see.

In Shivers its obvious there are multiple ways to view what is going on. The perspective that shows this awful creature living within a human and driving them to sexually assault others does not portray a positive image. Yet in class we discuss whether at the end this “creature” really was negative once everyone became infected. I would argue that even though the people of the community seemed “normal” or “functional” after the entire community was infected, they aren’t in fact normal, therefore to me this is not a positive outcome.

When I think about the pattern in which a person spreads this infection, it’s anything but positive. These sexual assaults take place against a persons will, and this isn’t even taking in to consideration the actions that some of the people take who are infected against those who are not. Looking at the character Nick he murders the scientist because the scientist is trying to save himself from this creature burning his face. He has no sense within himself to look outside of the situation and realize that killing a man over this “thing” is not the right thing to do, which shows abnormality, especially considering what this “thing” is. In this instance we can say for sure, that this creature is not doing any good for anyone in this situation.

I suppose the bottom line of it all is that it can depend on what point we look at the community. If we were to only look at the end of the movie where everyone leaves the community looking great all as friends, then yes we could say this movie and whatever events may have taken place had a happy ending. In order to come to this ending though, the whole movie taken in to account, I could not say these people are “functioning normally.” This goes for multiple other scenarious as well. We talked about the movie “How to Lose a Guy In Ten Days,” if we didn’t understand the context behind why Kate Hudson acts the way she does all we would see is a crazy girl in the movie who has no ideas on how to handle men. But this of course is not the perspective we are to take. We are to understand why she is acting the way she is instead of simply believing she is just

This could be a stretch, but bringing Austins writing into the swing of things, he discusses that we read things based on how they are portrayed (ex: punctuation, capital letters etc.) this is how we as the audience understand what is being said to us. If we look at Shivers only from the end, these people are portrayed happy and “normal” but when you look deeper (when Austin brings in the idea of whether what is being said has intent of being truthful) we are not so sure that the people of the community are “normal” or even happy for that matter, because is this new being really them?