Class Notes Week 3

“The Sand-Man“

Blade Runner

Colonization–Roy quotes the poem by Blake:

“America: A prophecy,” printed in 1793: “Fiery the angels fell / Deep thunder rolled around their shores / Burning with the fires of Orc.” Blake’s original words: “Fiery the Angels rose, & as they rose deep thunder roll’d / Around their shores: indignant burning with the fires of Orc.”

Dehumanization of replicants:
1) Contrast to animals
2) Commodification (e.g. Gender and Sexuality)

Role of free will/agency
Commandment/Programming
Symbol of the eye
Creator vs. Created

Evidence of Android affect/interior emotional life.

Notes: Freud Goal

to use a simple child’s toy to demonstrate the way memory and consciousness function

Points Memory is a mechanical system of inscription and repression

Identity a system of conscious and unconscious thought Consciousness if fragmented and discontinuous Chalkboard—unlimited receptive capacity, but no permanence

Paper—permanent receptor, but not unlimited “All forms of auxiliary apparatus which we have invented for the improvement or intensification of our sensory functions are built on the same model as the sense organs themselves (R135)”

Hence our modes of reminding and memorizing are insufficient, since they can neither reserve permanent traces nor hold unlimited storage capacity. Argues that we have two systems at work for this: 1) Pcpt-Cs. System of perception consciousness, which perceives reception but like the chalkboard retains no permanent trace—example of this??2) Mnemic systems lying behind the perceptual system, including the Unconscious.

Wunderblock or the “mystic writing pad” as a clear and mechanical/technological analogy or example of how our memories and perceptual apparatuses function. Comprised of three parts: Composed of three discrete layers—a wax slab at the bottom, a “transparent piece of celluloid” for the cover, and a clear, transparent sheet sandwiched between—

the Wunderblock provides an excellent and at times a beautiful metaphor for human memory and consciousness. The mechanics of the instrument are simple: write on the top, watch the writing appear from the pressure of a plastic stylus on the gray surface, then peel back the top sheets and watch the writing disappear. The symbols written remain as traces in the waxen block, but they are no longer visible on the mystic pad’s cover layer. Freud makes the toy’s relation to the psychical apparatus clear in the passages that follow. The cover of the pad functions as the system of perception, the wax slab as unconscious repository, and the erasure of writing and renewal of a clean writing surface that comes from the rustling pages of the mystic pad functions as our pulsating and intermittent consciousness:I do not think it is too farfetched to compare the celluloid and waxed paper cover with the system of Pcpt.-Cs. and its protective shield, the wax slab with the unconscious behind them, and the appearance and disappearance of the writing with the flickering-up and passing-away of consciousness in the process of perception. (230-231)

Freud describes the functioning of what he calls the System Perception/Consciousness as an interplay between external stimuli and internal feelers sent out by the unconscious. It is in this intermittent connection between internal unconscious probing and external sensory experience that, as Freud asserts, consciousness occurs: It is as though the unconscious stretches out feelers, through the medium of the Pcpt.-Cs., towards the external world and hastily withdraws them as soon as they have sampled the excitations coming from them. (231)

QuestionsMemory is a mechanical system of inscription and repression

Identity a system of conscious and unconscious thought Consciousness if fragmented and discontinuous

How reliable are memories? How do we supplement our memories—only writing?

What does the supplement become—external and materialized portion of the mnemic apparatus? What is significant about this? Subject to tampering, no longer contained within the limits of the human body? But is it ever confined to the limits of the human body? What is the role of Memory in Blade Runner?

How do photographs function? How do the replicants go beyond mechanized memory?

“An Old Robot’s Two Times Two”Vladimir Grigorev

Examples of affect in the story?What is the commandment for these robots?Slippage on page 289 (R25) where the robot is referred to as “The old man”Cyclical creation mythOrangutan—evolution?“There are more things in heaven and earth, Horatio, than are dreamed of in all your philosophy.” -Shakespeare, Hamlet

About this entry

You’re currently reading “Class Notes Week 3,” an entry on C-LIT 146: Class Forum

Published:: August 22, 2006 / 6:40 pm

Category:: Class Notes

Tags:

alex hogan 8.23.06 / 6pm

We talked about the many different symbolic meanings that the recurring theme of eyes in science fiction might hold yesterday. One more thought on that is that eyes have much to do with memory, and memories help define identity. Just like the photographs in “Bladerunner,” our memories are often images that we hold dear. When Roy killed his creator by squeezing out his eyes, it’s like he is expressing his anger, disappointment, bitterness at not having his own eyes, his own memories, or his own true identity.

carlo parseghian 8.23.06 / 10pm

I believe Roy killed his creator for a different reason. While some replicants were there only to cause harm to humans (Leon), Roy and Pris were trying to stay alive. Ween Roy met with Tyrell, his comanding and intimidating presence was only to gain information about his life, and how he can continue it. When Tyrell told him there was no way he could be rescued, Roy finally succumbed to his inner rage. I find it ironic how Roy kills his creator, but saves the man who hunts him.

amy moffatt 8.24.06 / 6pm

It was very interesting that someone in class noted the role of the eyes in Bladerunner and the difference between the appearance of the eyes of the replicants and those of humans. In my discussion question on “The Sand-Man”, I focused mainly on the role of the eyes. Throughout the story the eyes symbolize a point of view. The weather glass vender Coppola, who ends of being the same man as Copelius the evil Sand-Man, sells glasses to Nathaniel. In the end of the story Nathaniel jumps to his death after looking through the glasses at Clara and at Copelius. Olimpia’s eyes play a major role in the story as well. Most people see in her perfection without heart; they cannot see anything in her eyes but a blank stare. Nathaniel, however, sees this blank canvas in her eyes and projects his desires onto her, believing that she feels some deep passion for him. When Nathaniel finally sees Olimpia without her eyes he realizes her for the lifeless doll she really is.

Arina 8.26.06 / 5am

Eyes are such a big deal to us humans in so many different ways. Some claim to read a person by the eyes, a form of first impression and reaction to experiencing emotion. Nathaniel apparently cannot feel or physically see that Olympia is something besides human, but I wonder how many of us would. How perceptive or preoccupied are we to notice a foreigness? And would it be by physical means or an intuition? In Blade Runner, the “business” was so good that a VK test was necessary, but Deckard never killed a human by mistake… and conversely in “Sandman”, Olympia was portrayed as obviously nonhuman and Nathaniel could not recognize it. So does it depend on the person? From where does this recognition come- mental, physical, intuitive?

lauren ferguson 8.31.06 / 12am

i think it is odd that the concept of eyes is so apparent in most of the texts we are discussing. what i noticed was the resemblence of the animal eye to the replicant’s eye toward the end of “Blade Runner.” does that mean that the replicants were more like animals rather than humans? that definitely correlates with the fact that both Priss and Roy had animal like characteristics, like the howling, that would also explain why their eyes, at some points, were like that of an animal’s.

Kyndra Douglass 9.1.06 / 6pm

i wasn’t really sure where to post this…
but i didn’t find the story of the Borg, Hugh, transitioning into something less “borg-like” was very believable (but what in Star trek is?) Aren’t there basic program boundaries that a computer can’t cross without gonig beserk? fors instance, they spoke about collapsing the Borg community by sending them a paradoxial puzzle. their mind wouldn’t be able to comprehend it, so i would believe that the concept of an individual or “I” would be inconceivable. i guess it could be attributed to the Borgs’ learning capabilites (do they have those?) and the fact that the puzzle had no answer. it was interesting but unrealistic.
also, what was Whoopi Goldberg’s character’s role on the ship?

Anabelle Frausto 9.3.06 / 2am

I find it very interesting that in most of our readings the writers mention the eyes. I see the eyes, as mentioned in class, “the window to one’s soul”. This makes sense in our readings because many of the “robotic” characters don’t posses a soul. For example in the story of The Sand Man they mention how Olympia is a beautiful girl but has a blank stare. She seems to have an emptiness in her soul, that is because she doesn’t posses a soul. I think the authors of the stories, by mentioning the eyes, are giving is a sign that that specific character with the blank gaze has no soul.

Nasser Cortez 9.3.06 / 5am

I think that the eyes specifically in “Blade Runner” are meant as a means to distinguish the human from the mechanical, which is interesting because it illustrates how thin the distinction is. If anything, having to look at someones eyes to distinguish real from artificial seems like a last resort. Normally one assume that personality traits, or even a broader physical appearance would make the differences clear; however, that’s not exactly the case. Additionally, going along with the idea of the eyes functioning as a means to distinguish the soulless from those with souls, if following that rationale than it’s logical to assume that the difference between a robot and human is the lack of a soul. However, that all really depends on perspective. What is a soul? Who creates the criteria? So, essentially, if anything, the difference between the artificial and the authentic is all really based on perspective; therefore, the differences between humans and robots are all ambiguous.

C-LIT 146: Class Forum

Class Notes Week 3

About this entry

8 Comments

Have your say

About

Recently

Categories