Pages

Wednesday, April 27, 2016

Is there an authentic me?

For this week's reading response as part of my Digital Culture course at the Australian National University we are asked:
Is there an 'authentic' you? And if so, where? Does your online identity have anything to do with your 'real' identity, or do you make a distinction, if not, why? 
And here's my reply.

How can one know? 

Jacques Derrida.
Source: The Guardian 
I shall attempt an answer to your question(s) and mine but bear with me. There’s a risk I may be circuitous, even appear evasive, in my attempt to provide what ought to be an easy answer to a straightforward question.  Of course, there’s an authentic me, I instinctively assert (with scanter evidence than I’m entirely certain about). And yet, if I’m honest, those dead, white, 20th Century, French philosophers in Wednesday’s lecture (especially Derrida, I have to say, with his viral matrix, its two threads of disordered communication and undecidability) require me to pause, reflect, question my own assertion, hedge my bets in a way. Not quite answer.

Here’s where my problems start. 

First, there’s postmodernism. It’s not really an ‘-ism’ at all. No one really takes it seriously in the 21st Century. And yet … Second, there’s Derrida who just will not leave any thinking person alone with the comfortable, old world certainties (which I mean rhetorically or ironically) of Modernity’s Cartesian duality and the 18th Century Enlightenment, particularly (for me) the dimension one was raised to regard as its muscular, ‘ass-kicking’, let’s get the rational, empiricist show on the road variant, known as the Scottish Enlightenment (Hume, Smith, Carlyle, Watt to name but a few). And third, there is the slippery but essential method / tool / process / technique / concept (I’m never quite sure what signifier to use, which is the kind of postmodern, Derridan circularity that makes one scream at times) of deconstruction. Those threads leave an ageing Marxist floundering at times. The result is I respond to your question(s) not with answers but more questions. They may circle what looks like answer.

#1, What do we mean by authentic?
Source: The New Inquiry

Rob Horning thinks he knows. He writes (in his article 'Google Alert for the Soul') that we can no longer think of authenticity as,
fidelity to an inner truth about the self but fidelity to the self posited by the synthesis of data captured in social media - what I here call the data self. This sort of decentered authenticity posits a self entirely enmeshed in algorithmic controls, but it may also be the first step toward post-authenticity, 
I’m not so sure. So I start by turning to a dictionary to consider the different, perhaps overlapping or contradictory, readings of the signifier “authentic”. Thus:

1) “of undisputed origin or authorship; genuine”
  • I possess a 59-year old document that confirms Douglas Dougan Herd was born at 4:40 p.m. on the date of his birth at 1301 Govan Road, Glasgow.
  • On its reverse is written in fading ink that this Douglas Dougan Herd was “Baptised in the Name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Ghost” on 19th May 1957.
  • I also have a certificate of Australian citizenship dated 16th November 2006.
    • All genuine with verifiable authorship and of undisputed origin. Am I authentically Australian or Scottish? Can I be both simultaneously? 
    • I know I have no religious Faith of any sort but I was Baptised in a Christian church and raised through my formative years in the same traditions of Scottish Presbyterianism that drove the 18th Century Enlightenment. Baptised? Baptism no longer in operation? Didn’t he mention Marxist earlier? Who is this Douglas Dougan Herd? Does he know? Do we believe him?
2) “accurate in representation of the facts; trustworthy; reliable.”
  • How authentic can one’s identity be if an accurate representation of the facts suggests this Douglas Dougan Herd may not be trustworthy or reliable. For example, is this definition of authentic reconciled or destabilised by even a few facts (selected from a longer list from life)?
    • Twice divorced: accurate but ... trustworthy, reliable?
    • Arrested at the age of 17 by two Scottish police officers, jailed for a night, appeared in a Scottish court to answer charges of drunkenness and breach of the peace. Accurate, trustworthy and reliable. 
      • (I was found to be not guilty. Does that mean 2 authentic police officers lied? Yes. Most 17-year olds plead guilty, cop the fine and move on ‘cos, you know, who is a judge going to believe?)
    • Arrested, age 22, after being chased by six Scottish police officers, jailed for a night, fined £50 for breach of peace & disorderly conduct. 
      • (Organiser of student civil disobedience action against Apartheid rugby team tour. Pitch ‘invasion’.)
    • Subject of an MI5 counter-intelligence file along with many other political activists of the 1980s. 
      • (You would think MI5 had more important people to keep files on but apparently not.)
#2, Does your online identity have anything to do with your 'real' identity, or do you make a distinction, if not, why?
Douglas Rushkoff's polemic
Source: Wired

The first part of the question suggests a false dichotomy that cannot be sustained and is not helpful in the digital age. In as much as any person’s identity can be said to be real it must, in the contemporary world, encompass an online dimension as well as others that are no less constructed (see final part below).  This is one of the (several) areas in which I take issue with Douglas Rushkoff’s essay ‘Digiphrenia’, not least his rather disingenuous assertion that “people are still analog”

Well, yes but also no Mr. Rushkoff. Here’s how I think I know.
  • Paraphrasing William Shakespeare’s Shylock, ‘If you do prick me, do I not bleed’ (real, analogue Dougie)
  • Access Internet Banking (real, digital Dougie)
  • Buy online (book purchases, flights to Scotland, etc.) real, digital transactions to facilitate, expand and enrich the experience of real, analogue Dougie.
  • Post to social media daily (more or less) real, analogue Dougie’s construction of real, digital Dougie’s online presence, e.g.
    • Tweet on issues of political engagement (disability advocacy, anti-Trump, etc)
    • Facebook posts ranging from anti-Trump memes, disability advocacy, photos of tomatoes in the garden or our cat, Prince videos for obvious reasons. (digital traces and signs of the real analogue Dougie, his online networks and personal biases and preferences)
    • Blog, essentially a private journal because no one else reads it.
I contend that all of the above and more are constituent parts of the currently authentic me. But that idea of me is not the same as the idea of me twenty years ago and it won’t be me in ten years’ time (if I live that long).  As Irving Howe observed over 20 years ago,
Let us say that the self is a construct of mind, an hypothesis of being, socially formed even as it can be quickly turned against the very social formations that have brought it into birth 
Or almost. I think we construct, deconstruct and reconstruct our self continuously; in real time, in relationships with real people as well as online in networks, communities and virtual worlds. It’s called life. Sometimes it’s messy and hard to pin down. That’s not a bad thing.

Sunday, April 24, 2016

Spike's spuds

Picked this morning

Before ...
and after.

Sunday, April 17, 2016

Saturday, April 16, 2016

Who We Were by Lucy Neave

Order a copy here
So ... I finished reading the novel written by my creative writing teacher at the Australian National University. Here's an interview / profile of Lucy from the Sydney Morning Herald

What do I think? I'm not entirely sure. It's well-written - sparse, minimalist prose with a surprisingly detached tone (surprising given it's both a love story and a quasi-political thriller with spies, FBI raids and extra-marital sex on the lounge room floor - or was it the kitchen?) Maybe that tone reflects the post-traumatic distancing felt by the narrator; betrayed, back home in Australia, isolated and recalling events years after the events. Detachment is a tricky tone to sustain. 

What words would I use to describe the novel? Intriguing rather than compelling. Ambitious in what it strives to achieve, seeking to unite the personal stories with the politics and beat of another place and time. But not entirely successful in realising its commendable ambitions? 'Fraid so. It's a good, interesting read but at times I couldn't quite maintain a willing suspension of disbelief. Read it and judge for yourself because there are plenty of professional reviewers (some you can find on Lucy's web site here) and everyday readers (on the Good Reads web site here) who think differently.

Friday, April 15, 2016

Jane Eyre

The brilliant Mia Wasikowska as Jane Eyre
Watched a splendid adaptation of Jane Eyre, directed by Cary Joji Fukunaga. Anchored by a marvellous performance by Mia Wasikowska it also has excellent support from Michael Fassbinder, Judi Dench and Jamie Bell. Can a movie be better than the book it comes from? Probably not but this comes close. It's pared back, spare and manages the novel's implausible plot points well enough to keep intact your willing suspension of disbelief. Well worth watching.

Thursday, April 14, 2016

Star Wars VII ... again


Rented the great adventure from iTunes. It really does stand up to watching a second time. It may even be better this time round (although that doesn't alter the fact it's essentially a re-make of the original with some clever mirror imaging between the two stories). I believe I'm now looking forward to Episode VIII more keenly than before.

Wednesday, April 13, 2016

A good day to enter my sixth decade

Breakfast at Local Press Cafe, Lake Burley Griffen ...
then the Great Moscow Circus ...
then ...
the flat-packed furniture shop ...


before a little bit of campaigning
for Every Australian Counts

Tuesday, April 12, 2016

Whatever you do ... don't mention the war?

Well no, of course we should mention it.  An article appears in today's Guardian under the headline 
Bernie Sanders' focus on Clinton's Iraq war vote isn't harping - it's necessary
It's written by Trevor Timm and, by and large, I agree with his central argument that the war in Iraq and the politics surrounding the decisions in the USA, the UK and elsewhere remain important matters of political debate and scrutiny today. But who voted which way and why is of less importance - except in the realms of history and election rhetoric in the current USA election campaigns (Democrat and Republican) - than establishing a clear framework to ensure we can deal with the war's legacy peacefully and avoid the political folly of repeating the mistakes of 2002 / 2003.


Hubris - MSNBC documentary from Rachel Maddow, 2013
All of which is by way of my apology for what follows. Mr Angry of Gilmore has been hitting the keyboard again in response to the article and some of the comments made by other readers. Here is what I wrote. 
I agree that the Iraq War is a legitimate matter to be raised in political debate today (like millions of others I marched to oppose the war because there were no WMD and the US and British governments at that time lied to their citizens). I agree too with your observations that we can trace the origins of ISIS to the chaos that war unleashed.
I'm not overly impressed, however, by Bernie Sanders reductionist rhetoric, which you quote in the article,

I don’t think you are qualified if you have voted for the disastrous war in Iraq.
The politically easy and (I think) reasonable answer to BS comment is that 'we were all lied to / if I knew then what I know now, etc'. Thousands of politicians the world over voted the same way as HRC. I believe they were wrong to do so. But that does not necessarily make them unfit to govern 10 years and more later. 
The questions BS and voters ought to be addressing is this: given the horrendous mistakes and deceit (by some people in government at the time) what foreign policy lessons have they learned, how will they govern to resist the mindless nihilism of ISIS, keep citizens safe and build a peaceful future? 
But here's the thing. Bernie has to answer those questions persuasively, just as much as HRC needs to, because he wants to be President as much as she does. We need to know in detail what both HRC and BS would do with their foreign policies because we certainly know what dangerous fools like Donald Drumpf and Ted Cruz would try to do. None of us wants to live (and maybe die) in the world they'd want to bomb back to the stone age.

Monday, April 11, 2016

Mr Angry from Gilmore is back again ...

Democratic Party, USA
An article appeared in The Guardian over the weekend which set me off (as sometimes happens). I resisted the temptation to respond because - frankly my dear, no one gives a damn what Douglas thinks. But I obviously cannot control myself. I saw the headline again this morning when I skimmed the front page. It's not just the politics of the article which drove me nuts (I believe it adopts a wishful thinking position because that's more soothing than the real world, it appears). It's also the deliberate avoidance of facts (about the relative strengths in the Democratic nomination process of the two candidates) that rattles my cage. Presumably mere facts present difficulties for the author's vision of how she would like the world to be rather than how it truly is.

That latter part - the disinclination to deal with facts - has always annoyed me about some of my fellow travellers on the political Left. When facts don't fit or cause problems for the narrative some folk on the Left carry on with their first thought, simply ignoring evidence they don't like. I think our task (keeping the progressive impulses of history moving forwards) is hard enough without resorting to pseudo-analysis from which all those pieces of real world intelligence we would rather not deal with have been quietly left on the floor. It reminds me of the behaviour I indulged in sometimes as a child. When I didn't like something - a parent issuing instructions perhaps - I tried to imagine that if I closed my eyes to their presence or obscured them with my fingers they would not be there. But when I lowered my hands the insistent parent was still there. Just like difficult facts.

Here is today's contribution in response to the article from the Guardian, here:
Bernie Sanders just won his seventh straight victory. Is he unstoppable? 
2.4 million more people have voted for HRC than Bernie. HRC is more than 200 delegates ahead of Bernie in the pledged delegate count. Bernie continues to lag behind HRC in both the popular and delegate vote. These numbers suggest quite the opposite of the article's rhetorical question. 
And you write that in Wyoming
He won 56% to 44%, and picked up seven delegates
but conveniently omit the fact that HRC picked up 7 delegates too.
And your article seems to deliberately misuse the language of the nomination process when it says
Sanders has done this in the past seven primaries, eventually crossing the finish line ahead of her.
We know, of course, that there is a fundamental difference between how HRC and Bernie perform in closed primaries or caucuses like Wyoming (with tightly closed and small electorates) and primaries (with far larger and more open electorates). New York is a primary not a caucus. It has a huge number of voters from a far more diverse population. It's in such contests that HRC has been at her strongest. So even if Bernie exceeds expectations in New York the maths of the nomination process suggest his bid has already been stopped because he needed to do better earlier to have any realistic hope of winning the race for pledged delegates.

Saturday, April 09, 2016

Spike in her new dress ...

... at Alex's wedding to Bevan. 
At the Crisp Galleries 
Hume Highway, 15 km south of Yass.
Home made. In a day.

Thursday, April 07, 2016

Chekov essay in on time

It begins ...
This essays discusses Anton Chekhov’s story ‘The Lady with the Little Dog’ published in Russian in 1899 and in English three years later. The essay makes the case that this deceptively simple story (which Nabokov described as “one of the greatest stories ever written” ) illustrates the mould-breaking innovations in approach, structure, style and technique which Chekhov introduced to the short story form. It demonstrates Chekhov’s position as what one might call a late-19th Century, proto-Modernist. His short stories establish a literary bridge between Victorian-era fiction – heavily laden with deterministic plot, character detail, classically antagonistic relationships and a recurring tendency towards formal narrative closure or resolution – and a more open, ambiguous and multidimensional portrayal of the human condition within realistic settings, with recognisably realistic characters and narrative structures that resist movement inexorably towards seemingly ineluctable conclusions or resolution.
And ends some two thousand or so words later. We shall see.

Tuesday, April 05, 2016

Reading Chekhov

Pic: ANU E Press
I'm reading background and secondary texts for an essay on Chekhov (due on Thursday) as part of my creative writing unit at the Australian National University. This afternoon I read a couple of chapters from Interpreting Chekhov by Geoffrey Borny, published electronically (co-incidentally) by the ANU E Press. It's been a valuable afternoon's reading (alongside Professors Bloom and Florence Goyet on Anton Pavlovich). 

In writing our essays we're asked, in part, to reflect on the connection, influence (or otherwise) of the author we're looking at on our own writing. Reading Mr. Borny's book on the great, dead Russian there were lots of resonances for a (very) late-flowering novice like me. But I was particularly struck by this extract from one on Chekhov's letters.
Literature is called artistic when it depicts life as it actually is. Its purpose is truth, honest and indisputable. To limit its functions to special tasks, such as the finding of ‘pearls’, does it mortal injury … I agree that a ‘pearl’ is a good thing, but a writer is not a confectioner, not a cosmetician, not an entertainer; he is a man with an obligation, under contract to his duty, his conscience; he must do what he has set out to do; he is bound to fight his squeamishness and dirty his imagination with what is dirty in life. He is like an ordinary reporter.
Not dead yet, Douglas. Keep on writing.

Friday, April 01, 2016

Donne

Done!
I finished my 2,500 words (and maybe then some) on the libertine-era, love lyrics of John Donne and submitted my essay before the 23:59 deadline expired. My argument goes like this:
This essays makes the argument that John Donne’s love lyrics are demonstrably not a rejection of the Renaissance era’s public sphere in favour of a valorized private realm of mutual love between a man and a woman.  Rather, Donne’s early poetic works are best understood as performance pieces by a coterie poet of the late-16th / early-17th Century seeking to be noticed, advanced and raised up in a rigidly stratified world. The love lyrics are concerned at least as much (if not more) with demonstrating Donne’s wit, understanding of, as well as worth within and to, the upper echelons of English courtly society as they are with making esoteric observations on the nature of the romantic bonds and erotic bliss found in heterosexual love in the private, even secret, spaces of his time.
I abandoned my original idea to focus on The Cannonisation as the second poem to be taken apart. So I've written on The Sun Rising and A Valediction: On His Mistress. I thought it might be wiser to look at an aubade and an elegy. We'll know in four weeks or so.

Next, it's on to a close analysis of a scene from Waltz with Bashir, due tomorrow no later than 23:59 for my film studies unit. How much more easy online submission makes the life of an undergraduate student who too often flies by the seat of his pants.