Life Gems?
Upon embarking on these extra topics we were asked to consider for this week Toffoletti’s words continued to run through my mind. As she described the discarded Barbie dolls she found at a local flea market, she stated that these dolls were waiting to be “taken and used in another context” (57). She suggested that knowledge, information, objects are mere simulations of their predecessors. Using the Barbie doll she demonstrated how knowledge, information, and objects can transform or be transformed based on individual experiences or perceptions. The idea of Life Gem is an obvious representation of the concepts described by Toffoletti. The product promises to take a lock of hair or cremated ashes and transform it into another carbon based substance to commemorate the life of an organism (I mean its suggested use is for human beings, but who says a loved one cannot be your pet?). The transformation of one object to another is apparent here; however, we also see the ability of the object to transcend boundaries of knowledge and representation through the medium in which it is presented (form/embodiment). It is no ordinary diamond after all. The diamond produced by Life Gem has clearly transformed/changed its medium to represent your loved one in a new (and exciting?) way. I cannot deny that this concept is intriguing…it immediately engendered visions of Han Solo -- frozen in carbonite, Mel Gibson in Forever Young -- cryogenically frozen, even Brendan Fraser in Encino Man – preserved in a block of ice. Each character represented a transformation of identity, perceptions, and knowledge with regard to their current state (embodiment) in society. They meant something different for society, just as it meant something different for them.
"She suggested that knowledge, information, objects are mere simulations of their predecessors."
ReplyDeleteWhen I was rereading this, I couldn't help but keep thinking back to Plato's ideal forms. Plato asserted that material forms in reality were merely imperfect copies of the abstract, ideal forms (that were unknowable to us because they couldn't be understood through perception). Toffolletti (and certainly, many others) suggest that information, etc., is a simulation of its predecessor.
Just like Plato, Toffolletti suggested the copies/simulations were influenced by (if not created entirely of) perception (although I'm not sure if she addressed whether perception--and by default, simulation--were imperfect copies or flawed, as Plato).
"it immediately engendered visions of Han Solo -- frozen in carbonite, Mel Gibson in Forever Young -- cryogenically frozen, even Brendan Fraser in Encino Man – preserved in a block of ice."
I have no idea why I didn't think of any of these (I'll blame it on the fact that I've never seen these films, although I can't deny knowing about their plots and these specific plot elements).
I wonder what changes when the "loved one" is symbolically preserved (in a gem or other commemoration) rather than preserved in such a way that the "orignal" might be restored.
Interesting stuff, Anala!
One theme/trend that I've noticed throughout most, if not all, of our readings this semester is that of embodiment (form, medium -- whatever you want to call it), and its effects on the way we perceive information and knowledge. Moreover, as I continue to consider this notion of knowledge being a "simulation of its predecessor" or "copies/simulations influenced...by perception" it's making me wonder how much agency/power we actually have in creating new knowledge; and how much, if any, of it is authentic (if there is such a thing as authenticity given the theoretical perceptions of people like Hayles, Thacker, Toffoletti, and Plato). I feel like in our quest to try and help people learn, understand, or even relate to knowledge and information we end up reducing knowledge/information or identity into particular aspects vis-a-vis simulation rather than creating something new. In a previous comment I noted that what really gets me is how our relationships to this information is always shaped by someone else's perspective...it's like a version of the green cycle...information has been REDUCED to a particular set of concepts, ultimately REUSED since knowledge or what we have come to consider knowledge is a simulation of some other set of ideas, thereby RECYCLED to be perceived of as something else (even though we are learning it's nothing new).
DeleteEven this idea of preservation or commemoration changes how we perceive our "loved one" -- eventually that loved one becomes a thing, an object like everything else -- what's more, taking our readings into consideration -- attempts to restore the "original" are futile because upon changing its form or being affected by "new" knowledge the "original" no longer exists.
Ultimately we succeed in objectifying and commidifying knowledge (as we do with all things in our consumerist society).