Tuesday, November 24, 2009

Especially after the last class I was starting to get very distopic. If there is this complex system that we can never begin to even understand part of it then what is the point of even attempting? If anything that we do will never rully resolve the problems that we are seeking to solve, then why try and propose a solution all.

On page 127 Serres begins to address this. He describes life and chaotic and unknowable, and that this is a good thing. "Noise destroys and horrifies. But order and flat repetition are in the vicinity of death. Noise nourishes a new order." If we could figure everything out if we could make sense of it, then there would be no point in doing anything, because the outcome would be predetermined and then not worth doing. By making subtle disruptions and beginning to understanding small part of it, we take control of the system and begin to make changes to it and force others to react and change based one what we have done. Based on what Patrick has been telling us, I guess this is were we have to change our mindset. We have been in a system were we think we can figure it all out. Were we can apply laws and rules that will solve any problem and bring order to the chaos. I guess we have to stop thinking in terms of and end and beginning point.


pg 109

Here is a diagram that explains who Aegisthus is.


In the middle of page 109.

And that is the failure of his tactics: he is also contradictory in wanting to become a parasite while staying silent, a gigolo while remaining virtuous and a virgin. Only writing remains, the vicarious partner of conversation. And he will soon pay an abundant share-if a bit late with this money.

He is describing a guest who does not entertain the host. Does not speak well and must pay for his meal at the end. I have noticed this as a recurring point in the book. The idea that we must be involved in the process, we must interact and be involved in any process.

In this particular situation the guest tries to avoid giving of himself and in the end is punished and must still contribute. No matter what situation we are in we must always give of ourselves, we are all at some point either parasite, host or guest. We are forced to interact with one another and get drawn into these systems, it is unavoidable. At another point in Part II he describes the city mouse and the country mouse having a feast, when the master walks in the country mouse leaves and refuses to return out of fear. In this case by trying to be removed from the situation the mouse ends up upsetting the city mouse and begins to act as the interrupter.

pen falling out of his hand.

In the interlude he refers to the pen falling out of his hand. This came up in Part II as well. Does anybody know the significance of this?

Part 2

Here is my annotation of part two.


Tuesday, November 17, 2009

read before you type.

I just read the next line, he says that almost exactly

pg 92. the ant's struggle

"The ant produces parasites in eliminating others." pg 92

In this section Serres is describing this battle we have to eliminate rabbits from gardens, or the aunt to eliminate the grasshopper. I am starting to see parallels to what Patrick has been mentioning in class about the evolution in philosophy, were Serres is trying to say that we cannot separate ourselves from nature.

This attitude that man is not nature, has placed us in a situation were we are fighting off these things, that just leads to more problems or don't go away at all.

We no longer deal with the rabbits eating our cabbage, but we now deal with computers that dot function.

One is not better or worst, they are the same. A different system but still a system.