Objective vs. Subjective

As I've mentioned before I am taking a Utopian Fiction course in university at present. Today I had to give a presentation to the class on one of the books from the course. The book I chose to present on was The Futurological Congress by Stanislaw Lem. What follows is my presentation.

***

In his 1964 book entitled The Educated Imagination, literary critic Northrop Frye postulated that humanity’s response to the world’s natural apathy towards human values and desires is for us to reshape the environment into a more human world. One method that we employ in creating our own ‘human worlds’ is through the production of literature. This process of literary creation allows us to engage with alternative models of human experience. Utopian literature, specifically, enables the dreamer to not only engage with these differing worlds but to use them as a vehicle through which we can engage our own world. Stanislaw Lem in his novel, The Futurological Congress, does exactly this.

Through the eyes of Ijon Tichy we experience a possible future based upon the potential extrapolation of Lem’s contemporary society. The thriving drug culture of the 1960’s and more specifically the use of deliriants, provide a basis for Lem’s ambiguous utopia. Caught up in a world of multi-layered hallucinations, our protagonist is constantly fighting perception in search of answers to his nagging questions concerning reality. We follow Ijon on his journey through varying hallucinations from simplistic walking rats to the complex narcotized society of 2098.

As a futurologist, Ijon has gathered with his colleagues to discuss answers to humanity’s pressing problems: urban crisis, ecology crisis, air pollution crisis, energy crisis, food crisis, technology crisis, military crisis and political crisis (pg. 20). The effect of the Love Thy Neighbor bombs upon Ijon are varying hallucinations culminating in a potential utopia of luxury, comfort and ease where none of the listed problems exist. However Ijon continually struggles with the reality of his perception resulting in his climatic meeting with Symington.

By this point we’ve encountered the soothseers, we’ve discovered the multiple layers of illusion and identified the potential reality. It is possible that the incredibly overpopulated world of 2098 survives through the mass hallucination of the populace in order to hide the truth of the world from humanity. In doing so, not only has multiple layers of un-reality been created but multiple stratums of power have arisen as well. Ernst Bloch argues that while utopian literature is an unrestricted journey forward for the dreamer it is also a benchmark which we can use to “confute and judge the existent if it is failing and failing inhumanly.”

Lem explores a world where a few have control over what is perceived by the populace at large as being reality. Journalist Ken Sanes sees this ability to manipulate simulations of reality as a form of power and a person’s inability to discern the fake from the real as a form of powerlessness. So while our society doesn’t mirror the world of Tichy’s hallucination the question can be raised as to whether or not the world has taken note of Lems’ ‘canary-in-the-mineshaft’ and worked towards ensuring a society in which a few do not have control over our potential perceptive reality. For sure our world has moved away from the notion of narcotizing everyone however I would argue that we have not strayed from the path towards unequal control and power but rather exchanged the psychoactive chemical based hallucinations of The Futurological Congress for more technological means of reality distortion.

When looking at Lem’s work the fear is that at some point people will have such an ability to mask the truth that the ability to discern reality from fiction will be non-existent. Of course we are not there and may never be but we can see glimpses of it today. The Daily Show is one example. It goes out of its way to describe itself as being fake but amongst many gets more respect than real news agencies. We see it in political campaigns when in 2004 the Republicans doctored a photo to show John Kerry with Jane Fonda. When it was released it was accepted as real and had a real effect upon Kerry’s campaign. In magazines the photos of models and celebrities are altered so that their blemishes disappear, they get longer legs, slimmer hips, tighter stomachs and larger breasts. Unfortunately many young women believe these distortions of reality to be real and as such starve themselves to the point of illness and depression in an effort to mirror forgeries; the very real consequences of unreal images. Using programs such as Photoshop I can produce realistic photographs that could place me with the Pope or the Dali Lama. Plastic surgery is another example of producing a new reality with falsified components.

When Ijon first meets Symington he learns of Procrustics Inc. and the made to order hate and violence psychems which they produce (pp. 97-101). People are offered the opportunity to rape Joan of Arc and other such misdeeds. Today we don’t order drugs over the Internet in order to fantasize about killing, stealing and other crimes; rather we go to the local video store and get video games such as Grand Theft Auto and Halo. As computer technology has evolved so too has the immersive quality of the games people play. Gaming consoles search for ways to more realistically reproduce carnage visually and tactilely. Five of the best selling games in history are all based on violence. Besides video games we have developed other means of providing ourselves the violent thrill without the very real consequences of the actions, which are mimicked. Games such as laser tag and paintball are designed so that humans can hunt and kill other humans much like Symington’s products. The modern military blends these notions in its training and emerging technologies. The latest model of tank for the American army (not yet in service) is designed around the controls of video games so that instead of a five-person crew only two people can control it. The graphical interface used to control the tanks movement and weapons systems are that of a video game. Now they can sit in their enclosed stations and play at war all the while firing real shells and killing real people.

This realm of the unreal has taken on greater and greater significance amongst modern youth. Today people live in their virtual worlds forgoing friends in real life for fictitious versions online. Sites such as MySpace provide people with the illusion of community, friendship and real communication all the while keeping them away from the real thing. There are programs running in Japan that focus on reintegrating youth back into real society because they have immersed themselves in their virtual lives. One young man talked to an interviewer about his girlfriend and circle of friends as though they were real to the point where the interviewer asked to meet them. He couldn’t because they were on a computer. Another young man was in a training program trying to teach him job skills because he had so immersed himself in his fake reality that he had no skills with which to earn a living. These might be extreme cases but I personally know of many people who spend more time playing The Sims than relating with friends and family.

Buckminster Fuller has argued that early attempts at envisioning utopia failed because they were unable to overcome the you-or-me dictum that had dictated human existence for millennia. He argued that with modern technology humanity has the means at its disposal to make unnecessary this survivalist notion. He argued that the minimum requirements for utopia would include health, safety, comfort, luxury, good conscience and happiness for all. Lem provides this for his utopia not by providing for everyone but rather using technology to delude everyone into thinking that they were experiencing the benefits of utopia. The narcotized society provided for its citizens through the use of mascons what Ken Sanes refers to as an escape route from the limits of life. We see this at play today when a commercial comes on television offering to make our lives better, happier, more comfortable and more enjoyable. The illusion is that this is available to all when in reality most become indebted for life living beyond their means. As a result bankruptcies in North America are occurring at a record pace while consumer debt has vastly outstripped their ability to pay.

In no way is our contemporary society a match for the delusions of Lem’s 2098 but it is possible that we are witnessing the birthing process for such a society. As we continue to give greater and greater credence to fake images with which we are increasingly bombarded we make it harder and harder to recognize and therefore reclaim our objective reality. Ijon fought and struggled throughout in order to reclaim his reality and like him we should all be aware of Lem’s warnings and seek the truth of our reality as well.

***

pg. 20 : "Above the podium stood a decorated board showing the agenda for the day. The first item of business was the world urban crisis, the second - the ecology crisis, the third - the air pollution crisis, the fourth - the energy crisis, the fifth - the food crisis. Then adjournment. The technology, military and political crises were to be dealt with on the following day, after which the chair would entertain motions from the floor."

pg. 97 - 98 : "'Tichy,' he said, 'you are aware that we live in an age of pharmacocracy. Bentham's dream of the greatest happiness for the greatest number has been achieved - but that is only one side of the coin. You will recall the words of the French philosopher: 'It is not enough that we are happy - others must be misserable!''
'A cynical epigram!' I said with a snort.
'But true. Do you know what we mass-produce at Procrustics Inc.? Our commodity is Evil.'
'You're joking ...'
'Not at all. You see, we have resolved a great dilemma. Now everyone can do unto others what he's always wanted to - without causing them the least harm. For we have harnessed Evil, as medicine harnesses the microbe to inoculate and immunize. What was civilization ever, really, but the attempt by man to talk himself into being good? Only good, mind you. The rest had to be shoved somewhere out of sight, under the rug. Which History indeed did, at times politely, at times police-ly, and yet something was always sticking out, breaking loose, overthrowing."

***

Here is a funny link which I think serves as a good example concerning my above discussion. Enjoy.

Surrender

A friend of mine recently posted on his blog:

"But in her defence none of us are allowed to choose who we would love"

I had a certain knee-jerk reaction to this statement and after discussing with him the notion of love I made more concrete my initial opinion; I disagree.

What is love? Are we able to quantify it? We can certainly experience it, receive it, give it, lose it. I can't say that love is necessarily a conscious decision one hundred percent of the time. You meet another person and in exploring who they are something unconciously or conciously clicks into place. The result is that you are willing to do more with, for, because of this other person than others you know. Your willing to put up with more, you expect to receive more.

Love doesn't always work that way. There are different kinds of love, love for a parent, love for a sibling, love for a pet, a friend, a partner. In each case we say that we love the other but the way in which we love them is different. Its my assertion that the level to which we surrender ourselves to the other is different. You may love your pet but you are still the one in control. You can love a friend but there are still parts of yourself that you withold from them, most prominently perhaps is sex. You can love your parents and siblings but you still maintain control over yourself. With a partner we tend to surrender the largest part of ourselves.

We have an ideal for what love is, how it is practiced and how it is experienced. For each of us this may be different. In reality love can be many things but hardly ever does it reach the ideal. Love can sometimes be cold and distant, pragmatic, passionate, consuming, painful, joyous. As a Christian I am most aware of 1 Corinthians 13, most commonly known of as the love chapter. If you've ever been to a wedding you are most likely familiar with its tone. For me this is the ideal but I can't say that I've ever given or received this in human terms.

When I got married I promised my wife that I would love her until we died. I made this promise before friends, family and God. When my wife leftI remember thinking that I was doomed as I would continue to love her. At some point I decided for my own happiness and sanity I could no longer continue to love her. I made a choice. In making the choice things got easier and with time she no longer clouds my thoughts or haunts my dreams.

I made a choice, a negative choice and therefore I believe that logic would dictate that the positive choice is also possible. I chose not to love and therefore it must be possible to choose to love. Sometimes that choice is just as hard.

Hermitage

Well the hermitage is over (now just to clarify that's her-mit-age not her-mi-tage - apparently the latter is some french provincial wine). I ended my many months of isolation on Monday by reentering the land of the living and attending a rugby fitness practice. While many would mock me for such a notion I was physically shaking minutes prior to leaving for practice. I was a tad nervous to say the least. As anyone who knows me can attest I'm not at all fit, I'm not strong nor am I gifted with endurance, heck I'm not even really any good at rugby. But I needed to get out.

Sitting in a basement by ones self isn't all its cracked up to be. Sure I'm a superstar at Tiger Woods 2005 and I can kick ass at Star Wars Battlefront 1 & 2 but people need a bit more action than the fifteen foot walk between the fridge and the couch.

I'm not a very complex individual. I have little self esteem and am horribly self critically. I'm cynical, sarcastic and judgemental. I'm told I'm my harshest critic. I tend to project the negative thoughts in my head into the minds and attitudes of those around me and as such I counter with a preemptive strike of withdrawal and solitude. This of course helps to feed the negative self image and becomes a negative feedback loop (I learned about those in college - electronics).

So it wasn't the biggest thing in the world but it was no small thing for me to step out on Monday in front of a bunch of people and try to run, to do pushups, to try and throw a rugby ball. Hence the physical shakes I was experiencing before hand. I feared their reaction. I pictured in my head people I liked and respected laughing at me. It didn't happen.

In actuality I was pleased with my relative performance. I wasn't able to do all of the exercises but when it was all over I did manage to finish the twelve minute run at the end of practice. I didn't hear anyone laughing nor did I see anyone pointing. It was good. Good enough in fact to prompt me to play touch-rugby on Tuesday with some guys I know (I hesitate to say friends as when one removes themselves from a relationship for several months it doesn't seem right). Again it went well. I made mistakes, some stupid ones at that, but I played and had fun.

I don't know what it is but I can't not like rugby.

Matt King being tackled - RWC 2003