gut response, Bourbon and Laundry dialogue

: How do you know?
: I read it!
: Read it where?
: In a book.
: What book?
: I dont know, Leno, just this thing in a book!
: Wait did you even read the whole book?
Silence.
: Did you read the whole book?
: Thats not the point. I--
: NO. Did. You. Read. The. Book?
: Not... all of it...
: Ah! Typical! How can you lecture me when you have a half-assed idea yourself? If I didnt hold you up to the wall and make you eek out that you don't know what youre talking about, you'd be running around Knoxville using that infuriating tone of voice-
: What tone of voice? And whether or not I read the whole book, the idea is the same regardless.
: using the tone "you know leno, its very frustrating to me to see you abuse your body in this way..."
: Shut up! shut up shut up shut up shut up-- That isnt fair. That isnt funny.
: still in the tone, "Of course you know I want you to be happy..."
: It just means that I care.
: No, no. It means you dont know what the heck you're talking about.
: You don't need a whole book to make a point in an argument!
: You do.
: You dont.

what is school?

blah blah blah... loss of identity... blah blah blah.... duality of man.... blah blah blah... juxtaposition

orientation, space, and the internet

I have been recently excited by some new posts on Reading (w/) the Digital Human blog: orientation, space, and the internet.

One contributer says physical space is different from the internet becuase we can map it. As of now, there is not way to map two-dimensional space online. The best way, continues the contributer, is to orientate ourselves by ways of traffic and hits, the most visited sites become more defined as more paths lead to them... google, facebook, etc. The contributer uses the word gravity to characterize the force of their attraction. At first gravity, to me, still implies problematic directions. On earth it is "down." But after some thought, (and remembering reading Enders Game back when) I've re-remembered/realized that in outerspace we can rid ourselves with up/down/left/right: cyberspace follows these same rules, a thought that this contributer shares.

And yet does't routine have something to do with internet orientation? I have a log of sites I must cycle through whenever I get online. This sort of ritual is not unlike an obsessive/compulsivist's desire for order and comfort. This habit-building online throws into stark light my habit-building offline: routines I enact every day in my physical body for the sake of normalcy.

I used to think of these websites as rooms, after all chat "rooms" and other forums want us to be familar with these spacial distinctions... Facebook is a house with many rooms, and I feel good when I go there because it affirms what I'm doing as what others are doing. But if one extends the analogy of rooms and houses, what is the space where we are traveling to and from? Cyberspace does not give us the time for journeys in between destinations. The closest we get is the loading symbol on multi-media heavy pages, and those, like some aspects of long car-rides, provide only aggravation.

And as I am writing this, I am becoming increasingly aware of euphamisms, or are they demarcators, that we use for these online spaces. Are they rooms? Sites? Pages? All? None? Why?

Will future nostalgics opt for digital simulation of travel? Maybe they will want scenery of paths that lead them from site to site, or bits of graphic breadcrumb 'bites' like Hansel and Gretal.

Or maybe, future nostalgics will wish for a loading bar (45%....76%.....90%....) just like the "good ole days."

forever sunsets

I do believe that when its raining outside, this is something that I as well as others can independently comment upon. I don't think the whole world is a hoax or anything. I just think that actually getting at the rain outside is tricky and maybe impossible. Its like "watching the sunset"-- that figure of speech stacked up many times over in your brain, until the original event, literally watching a sun set is lost, lost so that it might as well have not existed in the first place. This is not to say that I can prove any of this, only that maybe one time I knew and felt it so much, but now I only sort of remember it being right.

a holy message

The Message came to her as she was leaving the gym, sweaty and satisfied. In this moment of ungaurded calm, the words unbiddenly entered her brain, like the tea labeled "mint-infused" that she bought at Weigals. And these words were perfect, balanced, concise. She got home, typed in her new facebook status, hit enter. So natural, it felt right.

gut response, Woyzek dialogue

: I saw Woycek.

: Yea?

: I thought, I thought that in that scene? It could have been you, with that knife, I saw you there.

: What scene?

: The one. The one where he kills her.

: I’m not going to kill you!

: But you could!

: Lena!

: But you could! You could! You could! Oh my God its too terrible.

: Lena, I’m not going to kill you. I love you.

: That’s all it takes—he kissed her. He kissed her when he was doing it. Oh my God.

: Lena, Lena, stop. Stop it.

: I can’t, I can’t! Anything could happen--

------------------------

: No its not like anyone's "crazy"! We just go to see the psychiatrist, you know, just in case we are.

: Covering all the bases?

: Exactly! Covering all the bases. In case.

insider/outsider confusion

My history professor asked our class to consider Leila Achmed's autobiography, A Border Passage in terms of "insiders" and "outsiders." Yet the longer I thought, the more problematic the words become.

Initially, the categorization is simple. Achmed, as a girl born in Egypt, can be seen as an "insider" in her youth. Later, she begins her schooling in Britain and ultimately finds residence in the U.S. as a professor, reaching a point of "outsider" to her first home. Yet, it is through a scholar's eye that she returns to childhood memories, and does not just recreate them for the reader, but instead re-interprets them, finds new importance to them, and re-imagines them. Many times she uses phrases such as (to paraphrase) "if I had known then..." or "looking back now, I see this was actually all about this..." It appears that Achmed uses the status of "outsider" to better understand herself as an "insider." But if that is the case, of the current and former Ahmed's, who is the real "outsider" and who is the real "insider"? Everyone knows the phrase, "inside scoop," so is it possible for Ahmed to deliver better insider information than an insider?

Plus, there is this tension between British colonizers and Egyptians. Once again, one could easily say Brits: outsiders, Egyptians: insiders. But here enters in Ahmed again to confuse us. As a woman who received her formal education in large part from British institutions and British teachers, is she, as well as other Egyptians in similar situations, not an outsider here too? Though she may not sympathize directly with British politics in Egypt (wait a second, thats an older, "outsider" Ahmed who has that opinion) is she not an individual in large part shaped by their force? Additionally, Ahmed acknowleges her father to have in some part internalized colonialism in his efforts to emulate the British. The "colonial internalization" is apparently a sympton of many colonized peoples. Once over, this is a western concept that Ahmed has learned to diagnose. Britain has infiltrated. Even more uncomfortably, is it possible that the roles can be reversed in this outsider/insider relationship between Britain and Egypt? Since Britain has called the shots in Egypt for basically for seventy-years of emperialism, perhaps it is they, the administrators and foreign authority, that are the real insiders here. The colonizers are calling the shots, they become the insiders to thier own game while the colonized are the outsiders learning the rules. As already evidenced in the above paragraph, can't outsiders make better insiders than insiders?

Lastly, in the book, there seems to be a sense of insiders and outsiders even within the Egyptian citizenry. Ahmed, aware in some degree of her "outsider" status, seems to envy other Egyptians for being more Egyptian then her. But as my TA pointed out in an email once "is there one true face to Islam?" this question has broader implications: the whole notion of "Egyptian" can't fall to one person as a model for everyone else. Ahmed expresses the ambiguities of people's identity within Egypt in the first place, and how the term Egyptian may not fully encapsulate a person. Well, for that matter, no term fully encapsulates anyone, so where are these insider groups to be found? If we accept the lesson there there is no "essence" of a person, we can extend this to say, there is no "essence" of cultural identity. I think Zizek said somewhere in his book, Violence, that a "body of people" or "nation" is actually a idea that no one fully sees: it is physically impossible. Yet we attribute characteristics to it, and assume that out there are people, Others, who exemplify all these ideals associated with the nation. In this way, we are all outsiders to some percieved ideal.

So where does this consideration of insider v. outsider go? It is a false diachotomy of sorts. They are most helpful as words to be manipulated... as tools to craft identity in relation to whoever is weilding them. It would be interesting to trace this insider/outsider duo to other historical situations.

in which i eat of the wonka nerds

I've just consumed three mini-nerds boxes in a fit of rage: purple, pink, then purple again. I did it in that order because I like the pink the best but because there was only one pink left I had to offset it by purples, since, afterall, I do not want a purple saturation taste in my mouth. There is too much going on in my mouth as it is right now: a cold sore and two, TWO canker sores. Consequently, I feel like a messy slob. And I know its because of the weather, and the stress blah blah but you may be wondering... why does someone in a fit of rage take the time to consider their nerd order admidst the gulps?

I guess this is not a true fit of rage. I'm sad too. Because because sometimes I'm afraid I believe just anything I read. That I read a book on feminism and animal ethics and everything that I hear makes me think we are all sexist animal abusers. Because somedays I feel like an idiot, and not a good, "ah I am aware of my lack of knowlege so actually I am wise to believe that I am an idiot" idiot-- but the actual jerkish kind who thinks they have shit to say but really dont.

Im sad because I think people play into roles without realizing it... especially in romantic relationships but also in school among educators. Teachers are no better than preachers in that they all love the converted rebel. Once you're in their orbit and actually want to learn well-- no you are immediately unattractive and their interests in you will drop OR never spark in the first place. My advice? Play hard to get because that's all people understand any more.

BESIDES measuring intelligence is bullshit so why doesnt everyone just act like everyone else is extremely bright, because they are. Really they are. We are. Even if I say the dumbest thing, I want someone to challenge me on it. And even if I write something terrible, or vague, or silly, or confusing, or half-assed, I want a teacher to go for it and treat me like someone who wants to learn. Isnt that enough? What is this nonsense where they sit back and try to ascertain "what sort of student you are" -- and then treat you accordingly after they think they've "figured you out"? The danger in this is if enough educators do it, then we start believing it. We will seperate ourselves out into our appropriate types. All because their grad school must of not have emphasised the virtues of empathy and patience. Becuase it takes time and humanity and discusssions of real things unfolding between people. Becuase it's harder to do than to decide who gets into an "inner circle" of knowledge-- dangling your intellect just out of reach of those you teach instead of fellowship and communion with those who just want to figure things out too.

Its rude. Intentional or not.