Date: Mon, 02 Jun 2003 09:22:36 +0100
From: "steve.devos" <steve.devos-AT-krokodile.co.uk>
Subject: Re: Systems and intelligence


Eric/All

In typical 'nerdish' fashion, which any systems expert must be, I've now 
seen part 2 of the matrix twice, lonce in the USA and once here in the 
UK. Like any modern spectacle it's impossible to read and critique 
without addressing its explicit relationship to the commodity and 
commodification. It's politics then is primarily and simply that of 
consumption - but - the dark and secret heart of the matrix is explicit 
within the text. Namely the ability to make a 'decision' and 'choice' as 
opposed to the dialectical opposition that runs through the matrix - of 
cause and effect. Choice or cause and effect.

The reason for the focus on this is relevant:  the first use of the 
virtual in the sense of the matrix's use of it  - was a wonderful SF 
novel from the 60s called Counterfeit World by Daniel Galouye. The story 
is largely irrelevant except to say that the purpose of the virtual 
universe (counterfiet world) being constructed was to replace 
'pollsters' and enable the success of new products and political 
decisions to be more accurately modelled. This was made into a 
fascinating german TV movie/series by Fassbinder in the 70s. The point 
ratrher is show that the virtual's reason for existence in our society 
is not as Pierre Levy suggests "liberatory" but rather mundane - 
commodification. But there is a serious aspect to the popular 
representation...

The politics of the matrix remains then, remarkably similar in that in 
both texts (65 and 03) - the question of the sadistic use that is to be 
made of human/machine bodies, in the virtual within the text, is 
explicitly drawn out into our real, the public realm. In both cases the 
differences between the human and the non-human are elided until in 
reality there are no differences - ultimately then both texts/films 
appear to contain an implicit critique of the sadism of spectacle. (If 
virtual subjects can feel pain is this going to be an arrestable offense ?)

My favorite product placement is (of course, of course)  the lamy pen in 
the hand of the source - click, click.

I am conscious that this may be to light a response to eric's very 
serious question. Let me think some more.
regards
steve

Eric wrote:

>Hugh, Steve, all:
>
>My last posting was taken from Lyotard's essay Postmodern Fables.
>Lyotard claims explicitly this tale is not a met1anarrative because no
>emancipation is implied.  He also describes it as pessimistic in the
>sense that it gives no hope, no real basis for a political praxis. He
>ends the essay saying it is not meant to be believed not merely
>reflected upon.
>
>That is what I am proposing. Personally, I think that consider of the
>social bond and language does not offer a wide enough scope. These
>things do not happen in a vacuum, but are historical and driven by this
>enormous machine, call it capitalism, complexity, a wind blowing from
>Paradise, that determines who and what we are and what we may become. 
>
>We are free to resist this process of course, but only in the context of
>immediate situations. We can only say yes or no to this or that. We
>cannot say yes or no to the system in any concrete way.  Imagine someone
>who wants to just live out their own simple life, outside of capitalism.
>It would prove virtually impossible.  
>
>Politics are of course the necessary response. But what politics?
>
>Hugh, I don't know if you've seen the latest Matrix movie and of course
>it is the usual pop garbage, but despite its reduction to politics as a
>kind of fashion statement (looking cool as liberation) I do think the
>matrix is a interesting and relevant metaphor. How would you
>contextualize your ideas about beliefs and the social bond in terms of
>that?  
>
>What are the politics of the matrix? (Steve, I guess this particular
>question is meant for you.)
>
>eric
>
>
>
>  
>