|
Hi Robin and list
Yes, your comments are spot on.
On Sunday 21 October 2001 19:09, you wrote:
> The Dixie Flatliner wasn't the first.
>
> Think flatlined/flatliner pre-dates Gibson. Doesn't Ian Watson use it in
> one of his novels? It's not even specifically cyberpunk, referring as it
> does to the EEG scan flattening out at the moment of terminal braindeath.
Didn't know about Watson, thanks for the tip. Flatline does refer to EEG
brain death in Gibson, so I am told. Not really an expert on Sci-Fi and
cyberpunk. Just picked up a couple of books which interested me for the
imaginative constructions. The idea of brain death, when an AI is cracked,
which becomes a machinic a-human thinking, which added to _Bladerunner_
machines not thinking but bleeding caught my imagination. I am not the first
to say this, of course, the British philosopher and cybernetic theorist, Mark
Fisher, in his PhD thesis in philosophy at Warwick made those connections and
I merely thieved them, and ran away with them, so to speak. My reading is
eclectic and often quite wide ranging: from Lorentzian maths to philosophy to
fiction and poetry taking what I understand and can use for my own grotesque
gothic writing needs. But then, this is what many poets and novelist do, so
nothing original in that.
> PS -- as you obviously know more about this than me, is there any truth to
> the rumour that Guy Debord didn't commit suicide on December 1, 1994 but/or
> that it was a Situationist ramp?
Actually, I am quite beyond good and evil and amoral so if this has any use
as truth, then go for it! The Guillame Debord and Claire Parnet characters
are not strictly speaking pseudonyms but intercessors, real people placed
into fictional situations, as a type of experimental creative writing
technique. I read some Debord and Situationist aesthetics as an undergrad,
but can't remember much of it. This doesn't matter, though, I can still
interact with the characters in what can be a rather wild ride. The fictional
situation in this case is more wild and innovative because it is happening in
cyberspace and cybertime between several different characters where you can
no longer be certain who is who, on and off lists, out of sync, here and
there. Who is to say that I, Chris Jones, is really me, but also an
intercessor, in this situation. Even Charles Stivale got dragged in as an
intercessor and placed in a fictional situation for some genetic testing
tasks. It is real leave your ego at the door stuff, or get seriously hurt, of
course. (A bit like a more theoretically informed MOO, perhaps.)
> PPS. -- I almost thought from what you said in your recent posts that
> son-of-genet was an updated Eliza program. Which would link into _Do
> Androids Dream of Electric Sheep?_
>
> I am wrong in this, obviously?
No you are not wrong! Quite spot on, in fact. Son of genet is an interesting
construct which is a bit like a fiction produced from a real person, Jean
Genet, and taking the intercessor technique even further. So, again, strictly
speaking, this character was not a pseudonym, either. How can I really say I
know who the poet is behind this gothic construction? Do I actually know? It
may not even be a human being; quite theoretically possible. So I have to
admit to being amused when Candice asked me to vouch for it, while fully
understanding Candice's position and being happy to put my professional
judgement on the line.
Son of genet is a virus which spreads by contagion. It is the devil's child,
the devil not being able to beget children by direct filiation and sexual
reproduction, must act by becoming a female succubus to a man and by becoming
a male incubus to a woman. So I was being asked to vouch for a viral
contagion, a child of the devil, understand my amusement, now?
If you are wondering what informs this; it comes from the Becoming-intense,
becoming-animal plateau in D&G, _A thousand plateaus_. To engage in monist
materialist philosophy is to make a pact with the demon, to practice
witchcraft, sorcery and magic. This is no metaphor. There is no metaphor.
There is no language or words to interpret, only the feel of words, as
Gertrude Stein would say, vibrating inside and through what you can no longer
think of as you. Your very human being and ego identification becomes
impossible. Even in Marx; think of the figure of the vampire in that writing,
for example. This was the problem Schelling had. A rather Gemini figure in
philosophy, ruled by the mercurial demon. In one twin is the shining star of
transcendental idealism with it's idealist interpretations and in the other
twin the dark forces of gothic materialism which Mary Shelley drew on, in
part at least, for her gothic construct.
Just a short note on D&G follows, since some on this list may not recognise
who in hell I am referring to....
Deleauzian philosophy is a radical critique of just about, if not all,
hitherto existing Western Philosophy, including Heidegger and hostile attacks
on Postmodernism. Sure, Deleuze is a little soft on Spinoza and Nietzsche but
even those two don't escape critique. Marx is strictly speaking, not
philosophy, so Deleuze can claim he has always been Marxian, just to add some
paradox. To sit down, read, comprehend and fully understand D&G, perhaps
checking all the references, to follow the critique being undertaken, would
be a life time's work in itself, as the writing was a life time's work for
Deleuze. So you would risk not producing anything useful that is not already
there if you attempted this massive task. So the question remains: what is
the use of this? The most productive use is to take whatever, small parts
even, you can understand and use and go somewhere else with. In fact, small
amounts often work better then big amounts. One, among many answers to Marx's
challenge; hitherto philosophers have interpreted the world; the point is to
change it. What novelists and poets have done for centuries in various
different ways, also.
best wishes
Chris Jones.
|
