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!