Reading for Instructions
I think I am beginning to understand this "reading for instructions" thing. Rather than try and make sense of everything myself, I have looked for possible ways that Baudrillard can be instructive in our creation of the fatal strategy.
Object
We already know that Baudrillard is going to instruct us to look at the object. The object in our case is our particular accident. The object is a "poor conductor of the symbolic order" but a "good conductor of the fatal"--the gods (read: the sacred) can only live in the inhuman. Taking a jab at Christianity, B. argues that the "God-Man is an absurdity" So this is one instruction: focus on the object/accident, but from the perspective of the accident--as if the accident "wants to happen." As Baudrillard writes, nature may be indifferent to men, "but it is not indifferent in the fact of making itself into a spectacle through 'natural disasters' (223). This connects with our Target because Virilio does not make a distinction between man-made and natural disasters. I would argue he focuses primarily on the 'object' (the twin towers--not the terrorists).
Signs
But what about further instructions? I think it has something to do with restoring signs to their power. If we are going to read our accident as a 'sign', then we need to ask what kind of sign--a sign with or without a signifier?
This is done, in general, by seduction--but not by one's own attempts at seduction, but the object's fascinating ecstatic seduction. Seduction teras you from your own 'desire', returning you to the world and restores power to signs. So how might we do this specifically?
If we have lost the 'scene' where the magic happens, we have to look for a new kind of seduction--"vertigo of obscenity" (149). It is this kind of obscenity that Marilyn Manson seems to get at in m(Obscene). I think he may be saying that their playful eroticism is much better than what is accepted in our society (you want commitment/put on your best suit/get your arms around me now we're goin down down down--an ambiguous lyric).
In Baudrillard's narrative:
"And so the cruel story of the woman to whom a man has written a passionate letter and who asks in her turn: 'what part of me seduced you the most? To which he replies 'Your eyes' and receives by return mail, wrapped in a package, the eye which seduced [. . .] nothing is worse than to utter a wish and to have it literally fulfilled; nothing is worse than to be rewarded on the exact level of one's demand" (152).
Thus, "destiny becomes specific: at a given moment, at a given point, SIGNS BECOME OBJECTS, impossible to turn into metaphors, cruel, without appeal [. . .] They cut short any decipherment, become confused with things" (153).
And again: "words, emptied of their meaning, begin to function as things" (190).
And ok, maybe I was thinking that this also relates to the Torino/Torino scale association.
Words cease to be things at h)and--they are like Heidegger's broken hammer--staring us in the face in their brute materiality. . .
Monday, February 7, 2011
The CATTt method--questions and concerns
I am a bit confused about the function of the blog. The blog, as I see it, offers two modes of writing: the first structure uses the blog as one would use a diary, recording the narrative of our thinking. This includes tentative connections that don't really fall under a particular heading or subject. This would use the blog as a linear medium.
While this is the structure I take with the email, because of the 25 post requirement, my blogs tend to use each entry as a way to explore a particular topic/concept. For instance, with Baudrillard I will have separate blogs on seduction, the obese, ceremony, and terrorism. I think this is more true to the heuretic method since we will eventually probably take one of these moments as an instruction. Furthermore, this is a different mode of thinking than what I refer to as the 'narrative' mode and as such differs from one continuous diary entry. This takes advantage of hypertext.
The problem I am having lies in my hermeneutic approach to texts. I want to make connections, struggling with the "meaning" of the text, rather than breaking it up into separate sections. Baudrillard himself asks us to be more "discerning" so perhaps my problem ( is I am trying to collapse these contents into a series of connections that will eventually make sense.
I just read through Foucault's Archaeology of Knowledge and, like Baudrillard, he is interested in mapping out the dispersions rather than connections that form an intricate but closed system. Though I haven't read Deleuze on Foucault, I think I understand why he likes his thought considering his concern with "lines of flight" and dispersion/creation of concepts. Perhaps I should approach B.'s text in this way and it will help me with reading heuretically?
Theory as Ceremony
Ceremony of the World
Ceremony (defined):
A ceremony is fatal and has no 'meaning'. The ceremony is not concerned with either subjective desire or objective 'chance' (more on that later), but the fatal object. Ceremonies are composed of discrimination NOT difference (203-205).
For me, there is a kind of relief in Baudrillard's marginalizing "difference" as the ultimate concept. Perhaps it shows my true colors as a middle class while male, but Baudrillard clearly does not completely oppose difference and discrimination. Difference has connotations of 'meaning' (at least B. claims it does). Discrimination (besides unfortunately sounding the history of race) is more about order and rules.
Indeed, Baudrillard argues that, in reality, each of us prefers and arbitrary and cruel order (although they are meant to be disturbed) than a 'liberal' one where we do not know what we want (206). This is a hard pill to swallow, but in a sense I take pleasure in repetition and ritual--when, "something besides the real is at stake." Thus, we play games.
Theory is like a ceremony: "both ceremony and theory [are] violent both are produced to prevent things and concepts from touching indiscriminately, to create discrimination, and to remake emptiness, to redistinguish what has been confused [. . .] ceremony is always sacrificial" (217).
If we are trying to re-introduce the sacred into the world--it seems that we need to look at ceremony as a possible resource--but what type of ceremony is possible in our obscene world?
Ceremony (defined):
a. An outward rite or observance, religious or held sacred; the performance of some solemn act according to prescribed form; a solemnity (OED)
A ceremony is fatal and has no 'meaning'. The ceremony is not concerned with either subjective desire or objective 'chance' (more on that later), but the fatal object. Ceremonies are composed of discrimination NOT difference (203-205).
For me, there is a kind of relief in Baudrillard's marginalizing "difference" as the ultimate concept. Perhaps it shows my true colors as a middle class while male, but Baudrillard clearly does not completely oppose difference and discrimination. Difference has connotations of 'meaning' (at least B. claims it does). Discrimination (besides unfortunately sounding the history of race) is more about order and rules.
Indeed, Baudrillard argues that, in reality, each of us prefers and arbitrary and cruel order (although they are meant to be disturbed) than a 'liberal' one where we do not know what we want (206). This is a hard pill to swallow, but in a sense I take pleasure in repetition and ritual--when, "something besides the real is at stake." Thus, we play games.
Theory is like a ceremony: "both ceremony and theory [are] violent both are produced to prevent things and concepts from touching indiscriminately, to create discrimination, and to remake emptiness, to redistinguish what has been confused [. . .] ceremony is always sacrificial" (217).
If we are trying to re-introduce the sacred into the world--it seems that we need to look at ceremony as a possible resource--but what type of ceremony is possible in our obscene world?
(m)Obscene
I'm so happy I finally get to use a Marilyn Manson video for school:
"Ladies, and gentlemen"
We are the things of shapes to come
Your freedom's not free and dumb
This depression is great
The Deformation Age, they know my name
Waltzing to scum, and base and
Married to the pain
BANG, we want it
BANG, we want it
BANG, BANG, BANG, BANG, BANG
You came to see the mobscene
I know it isn't your scene
It's better than a sex scene and it's
So fucking obscene, obscene, yeah
You want commitment?
Put on your best suit, get your arms around me
Now we're going down, down, down
You want commitment?
Put on your best suit, get your arms around me
Now we're going down, down, down
[GIRLS]
Be obscene, be, be, obscene
Be obscene, baby, and not heard
The day that love opened our eyes,
We watched the world end
We have "high" places but we have no friends
The world told us sin's not good but we know it's great
War-time full-frontal drugs, sex-tank armor plate
BANG, we want it
BANG, we want it
BANG, BANG, BANG, BANG, BANG
You came to see the mobscene
I know it isn't your scene
It's better than a sex scene and it's
So fucking obscene, obscene, yeah
You want commitment?
Put on your best suit, get your arms around me
Now we're going down, down, down
You want commitment?
Put on your best suit, get your arms around me
Now we're going down, down, down
Analysis
Baudrillard defines the obscene in a myriad of ways, but ultimately it is the 'loss of the scene' (the political scene, the aesthetic scene, etc.). Manson's music video begins with an old film clip (clearly mediated through an old camera) and changes to a modern stage, but with subtle references to old carnivals, peep shows, and magic shows. The song, to me, is actually quite ambiguous.
"Be obscene, and not heard"
I decided to check this quotation to make sure everyone got the lyrics right. So there are two possible literary references here:
1.) Oscar Wilde: "Gower, a homosexual, adopted a young man named Frank Hird, leading Wilde to warn a friend about them, 'Gower may be seen but not Hird." (http://www.nachtkabarett.com/babalon/topic/721)
2.) Groucho Marx: "Women should be obscene and not heard"
Both Wilde and Marx were famous for their wit and one could argue that they were both very 'theatrical'. Both of these figures are humorous.
Thus, interpreting Manson becomes difficult. The words "BE obscene" are uttered by fascist barbie doll cheerleader girls--they mainly meant to be looked at. Anyway, i think these connections are worth exploring in terms of B. The obscene "fascinates us."
Appearance and Disappearance: Baudrillard's illusions
It's Magic!
Although he doesn't explicitly say it, one of Baudrillard's main metaphors that moves throughout the text is the stage magician. Baudrillard speaks of a loss of the "scene," which corresponds to the loss of the stage and the illusion. Perhaps one of the reasons we are less attracted to magic is because our lives are obscene. We have lost illusion so that the Real is left.
Bordering on cliche, stage magic revolves around an illusion maintained by a secret. This is codified (as a "rule" rather than a meaning) in the Magician's oath:
""As a magician I promise never to reveal the secret of any illusion to a non-magician, unless that one swears to uphold the Magician's Oath in turn. I promise never to perform any illusion for any non-magician without first practicing the effect until I can perform it well enough to maintain the illusion of magic." (Wikipedia).
Thus, a pact is made to keep the secret of the illusion because if the illusion is revealed then the trick's effect is nullified. . .magic becomes banal (fatal becomes banal?). What once seemed a powerful spectacle (a kind of fetish) is reduced to a mechanical, rational explanation.
Illusion (as defined by Baudrillard): "an initiation to the rule, to the superior agreement and convention in which something other than the real is at stake" (211).
Baudrillard argues that what will eventually 'save us' is not rationality, but the "spectacle" (Baudrillard 225). However, can we get the scene back? Or must we look toward a new mode of seduction--fascination (more on that later).
For Baudrillard, as in magic tricks, the effect is all that matters. The secret is that the secret will not suddenly give the act more meaning. The magic trick is a signifier without a signified--it produces pure pleasure and jouissance--not meaning. It causes us to ask if we can "believe our eyes"--we want to believe it was "real"--we know that it is a 'trick', but its such a convincing one. We take pleasure in it because it does not deal in the Real.
The Prestige--loss of the scene
I must thank Steven L. and Jon T. for pointing me toward the film The Prestige, which dramatizes this loss of illusion and scene:
The plot of the Prestige is pretty complicated for a popular film. Its been awhile since I have seen it, but one of the events that one can see from the trailer above is that tricks 'go wrong' and the audience is horrified by the entry of the Real. The film centers around an alleged murder--a foreign topic of the magic stage where all is a play of appearances for our enjoyment.
But The Prestige also centers around the obsession with the secret of a trick that we "know" cannot be performed. The film keeps the viewer guessing until near the end where it is revealed that the one person who we know as Borden (Christian Bale's character) is actually he and his twin brother. Wikipedia summarizes it thus:
"Borden reveals that he was actually two identical twins who lived as Fallon and Alfred, alternating between each role. One twin (the one still alive) was the husband of Sarah and father to daughter Jess, and loved Sarah more than the magic; the other was in love with Olivia. They played one individual in life and in the illusions. Angier's method is also revealed: During the illusion, the machine created a duplicate of Angier, with one falling through a trap door into a locked tank and drowning, and the other being teleported to the balcony. Each tank contains a drowned Angier. Borden leaves Angier to die as a fire consumes the building. Afterwards, Cutter reunites Borden with his daughter"
Obviously, this "loss of the secret" results in a devestating, violent ending. Furthermore, once we figure out that the trick Borden performs is actually reality, we almost feel let down as an audience--it is unexpected and yet everything begins to make sense. This is the reason the secret must be contained for a magician. Again, in a useful phrasing, Wikipedia explains,
"Exposure is claimed to "kill" magic as an artform and transforms it into mere intellectual puzzles and riddles.[citation needed] It is argued that once the secret of a trick is revealed to a person, that one can no longer fully enjoy subsequent performances of that magic, as the amazement is missing.[citation needed] Sometimes the secret is so simple that the audience feels let down, and feels disappointed it was taken in so easily"
Though these comments are speculation, we can understand this in terms of the CATTt as an interaction of the Contrast and Theory. Once the secret is exposed, the magic becomes "mere intellectual puzzles and riddles" and that the "moment of amazement is missing." The trick loses its inhuman quality and dons mortal garb--the magician ceases to fascinate us (is magic seduction or fascination?). We revert to revealed strategies--the "game" loses any sense of game or play.
Prestige as Re-Enchantment/Fetish
According to The Prestige, there are three parts to a magic trick. These three parts serve to, to point to Stiegler, 're-enchant' the world.
1. The Pledge-- "the magician shows you something ordinary; but of course, it probably isn't"
2. The Turn-- "the magician makes this ordinary something do something extraordinary"
(now you're looking for the secret but you won't find it)
3. The Prestige--"this is the part where the twists and turns, where lives hang in the balance, and you see something shocking you've never seen before"
Appearance and Disappearance--Our Task
Baudrillard seems to call his readers to be illusionists, to be magicians. Instead of the Heideggerian search for the meaning of Being (in the early work primarily focused on the 'subject'; in the later work attempting to find the meaning of Being in itself), Baudrillard writes that our fundamental task consists of appearing and disappearing (213).
This takes us back to two paradigmatic children's games:
1. Fort-Da. While Freud interprets this game of fort-da as the "conjuration of a mother's absence," but Baudrillard takes it one step further, arguing "its also first of all a kind of ceremony, a control and mastery of appearance and disappearance" (212).
2. Peak-A-Boo--Though this game is not in the control of the child, we see here a fundamental example of appearance and disappearance--does the child really not see the face of the other, or is he/she merely pretending to not do so?
These examples also support Baudrillard's point that while we may think that child's play is free and spontaneous, it is actually the "charm of recurrence, of ritual, of meticulous unfolding, the invention of rules and complicity in observance, are what makes for the intensity and simplicity of child's play" (212).
Although at first I was skeptical, I begin to think about my own childhood games--how we would create a system of rules to follow. One of our favorite games involved shooting each other with nerf guns or even cap guns. We had to decide what would count as a "hit". Sometimes we'd argue over it "he's dead" --"no i'm not, that just touched my pantleg" "but i hit you" etc. etc. Kids care more for 'rules' (particularly if they are arbitrary than we give them credit for).
So, appearance and disappearance--is this related to our task of fatal strategy? It seems difficult to say how we "put things back into the cycle of appearance and disappearance," though clearly it points toward a focus on the object (which we will explore more in another post).
"The secret is made up of the annihilation of causes and the burial of ends in the organized order of appearances alone. The Rule of Appearances and Disappearances" (212).
Although he doesn't explicitly say it, one of Baudrillard's main metaphors that moves throughout the text is the stage magician. Baudrillard speaks of a loss of the "scene," which corresponds to the loss of the stage and the illusion. Perhaps one of the reasons we are less attracted to magic is because our lives are obscene. We have lost illusion so that the Real is left.
Bordering on cliche, stage magic revolves around an illusion maintained by a secret. This is codified (as a "rule" rather than a meaning) in the Magician's oath:
""As a magician I promise never to reveal the secret of any illusion to a non-magician, unless that one swears to uphold the Magician's Oath in turn. I promise never to perform any illusion for any non-magician without first practicing the effect until I can perform it well enough to maintain the illusion of magic." (Wikipedia).
Thus, a pact is made to keep the secret of the illusion because if the illusion is revealed then the trick's effect is nullified. . .magic becomes banal (fatal becomes banal?). What once seemed a powerful spectacle (a kind of fetish) is reduced to a mechanical, rational explanation.
Illusion (as defined by Baudrillard): "an initiation to the rule, to the superior agreement and convention in which something other than the real is at stake" (211).
Baudrillard argues that what will eventually 'save us' is not rationality, but the "spectacle" (Baudrillard 225). However, can we get the scene back? Or must we look toward a new mode of seduction--fascination (more on that later).
For Baudrillard, as in magic tricks, the effect is all that matters. The secret is that the secret will not suddenly give the act more meaning. The magic trick is a signifier without a signified--it produces pure pleasure and jouissance--not meaning. It causes us to ask if we can "believe our eyes"--we want to believe it was "real"--we know that it is a 'trick', but its such a convincing one. We take pleasure in it because it does not deal in the Real.
The Prestige--loss of the scene
I must thank Steven L. and Jon T. for pointing me toward the film The Prestige, which dramatizes this loss of illusion and scene:
The plot of the Prestige is pretty complicated for a popular film. Its been awhile since I have seen it, but one of the events that one can see from the trailer above is that tricks 'go wrong' and the audience is horrified by the entry of the Real. The film centers around an alleged murder--a foreign topic of the magic stage where all is a play of appearances for our enjoyment.
But The Prestige also centers around the obsession with the secret of a trick that we "know" cannot be performed. The film keeps the viewer guessing until near the end where it is revealed that the one person who we know as Borden (Christian Bale's character) is actually he and his twin brother. Wikipedia summarizes it thus:
"Borden reveals that he was actually two identical twins who lived as Fallon and Alfred, alternating between each role. One twin (the one still alive) was the husband of Sarah and father to daughter Jess, and loved Sarah more than the magic; the other was in love with Olivia. They played one individual in life and in the illusions. Angier's method is also revealed: During the illusion, the machine created a duplicate of Angier, with one falling through a trap door into a locked tank and drowning, and the other being teleported to the balcony. Each tank contains a drowned Angier. Borden leaves Angier to die as a fire consumes the building. Afterwards, Cutter reunites Borden with his daughter"
Obviously, this "loss of the secret" results in a devestating, violent ending. Furthermore, once we figure out that the trick Borden performs is actually reality, we almost feel let down as an audience--it is unexpected and yet everything begins to make sense. This is the reason the secret must be contained for a magician. Again, in a useful phrasing, Wikipedia explains,
"Exposure is claimed to "kill" magic as an artform and transforms it into mere intellectual puzzles and riddles.[citation needed] It is argued that once the secret of a trick is revealed to a person, that one can no longer fully enjoy subsequent performances of that magic, as the amazement is missing.[citation needed] Sometimes the secret is so simple that the audience feels let down, and feels disappointed it was taken in so easily"
Though these comments are speculation, we can understand this in terms of the CATTt as an interaction of the Contrast and Theory. Once the secret is exposed, the magic becomes "mere intellectual puzzles and riddles" and that the "moment of amazement is missing." The trick loses its inhuman quality and dons mortal garb--the magician ceases to fascinate us (is magic seduction or fascination?). We revert to revealed strategies--the "game" loses any sense of game or play.
Prestige as Re-Enchantment/Fetish
According to The Prestige, there are three parts to a magic trick. These three parts serve to, to point to Stiegler, 're-enchant' the world.
1. The Pledge-- "the magician shows you something ordinary; but of course, it probably isn't"
2. The Turn-- "the magician makes this ordinary something do something extraordinary"
(now you're looking for the secret but you won't find it)
3. The Prestige--"this is the part where the twists and turns, where lives hang in the balance, and you see something shocking you've never seen before"
Appearance and Disappearance--Our Task
Baudrillard seems to call his readers to be illusionists, to be magicians. Instead of the Heideggerian search for the meaning of Being (in the early work primarily focused on the 'subject'; in the later work attempting to find the meaning of Being in itself), Baudrillard writes that our fundamental task consists of appearing and disappearing (213).
This takes us back to two paradigmatic children's games:
1. Fort-Da. While Freud interprets this game of fort-da as the "conjuration of a mother's absence," but Baudrillard takes it one step further, arguing "its also first of all a kind of ceremony, a control and mastery of appearance and disappearance" (212).
2. Peak-A-Boo--Though this game is not in the control of the child, we see here a fundamental example of appearance and disappearance--does the child really not see the face of the other, or is he/she merely pretending to not do so?
These examples also support Baudrillard's point that while we may think that child's play is free and spontaneous, it is actually the "charm of recurrence, of ritual, of meticulous unfolding, the invention of rules and complicity in observance, are what makes for the intensity and simplicity of child's play" (212).
Although at first I was skeptical, I begin to think about my own childhood games--how we would create a system of rules to follow. One of our favorite games involved shooting each other with nerf guns or even cap guns. We had to decide what would count as a "hit". Sometimes we'd argue over it "he's dead" --"no i'm not, that just touched my pantleg" "but i hit you" etc. etc. Kids care more for 'rules' (particularly if they are arbitrary than we give them credit for).
So, appearance and disappearance--is this related to our task of fatal strategy? It seems difficult to say how we "put things back into the cycle of appearance and disappearance," though clearly it points toward a focus on the object (which we will explore more in another post).
"The secret is made up of the annihilation of causes and the burial of ends in the organized order of appearances alone. The Rule of Appearances and Disappearances" (212).
Wednesday, February 2, 2011
Slow (.) Children at Play
Bluffing vs. Slow Play
While bluffing takes place when you bet like you have a better hand than you actually have (or in the nuclear situation, than you are actually willing to lay on the table), "Slow Play" "is when betting weakly or passively with a strong holding rather than betting aggressively with a weak one. The flat call is one such play. The objective of the passive slow play is to lure opponents into a pot who might fold to a raise, or to cause them to bet more strongly than they would if the player had played aggressively (bet or raised). Slow playing sacrifices protection against hands that may improve and risks losing the pot-building value of a bet if the opponent also checks" (Wikipedia).
Slow play seems like it might be a "boring" way to play poker or perhaps just not as profitable, as this poker site claims:
"The object of poker is to win the most money. That's it - that is your goal.
In other words, all the strategies you employ are just a means to one end: the money. In light of that, one of the mistakes I see the majority of newcomers make is slow-playing. Or slow-playing too much.
Slow-playing, for the most part, is counterproductive. If your goal is to get the most money in the pot, how are you going to do that by checking? You build pots by betting your big hands, not by lurking in the weeds with them"(Skolovy).
This is the view of poker that seeks to maximize gain and to risk a lot to get it. Slow Play, in Poker player's opinions, seems kinda like the 'sucker' payoff. However, the author is sure to add that he just means use slow play sparingly--not never: "In poker, one strategy is never always correct. You always need to take into consideration the table dynamics, your image, your opponents' playing tendencies, etc. before you decide how to act" (Skolovy).
The question for us is whether poker remains a good analogical contrast for our CATTt. Should we think about 'slow play' as an option? Does this correspond more to the idea of the 'gift'.
Child's Play
I like this sign because it combines (via word association/punning) the language of Poker and the more care-free, enjoyable version of play that we associate with children (if we read the sign 'incorrectly' as "Slow children at play"). Children do not play poker in the street, but rather foursquare. Foursquare is an interesting game because it has nothing to do with maximizing one's gain or winnings, but rather occupying the position of the "Ace" for the longest period of time. When the game is over, no one can say that they really "won" and if you get "out" you are always able to get back in after watching the game from the sidelines.
Or perhaps, better yet, we could think about the game of hopscotch, or as it is known in Germany, "Himmel und Holle"
"In Germany, Austria, and Switzerland the game is called Himmel und Hölle (Heaven and Hell) although there are also some other names used, depending on the region. The square below 1 or the 1 itself are called Erde (Earth) while the second to last square is the Hölle (Hell) and the last one is Himmel (Heaven). The first player throws a small stone into the first square and then jumps to the square and must kick the stone to the next square and so on, however, the stone or the player cannot stop in Hell so they try to skip that square"
Earth, Heaven, Hell--a certain mythological relevance. Again, not played for any specific gain--just avoid hell.
Accident as Warning Sign
Furthermore, that the sign is in the form of a warning references a common accident: hitting kids with cars--a common, everyday accident sacrificed to the values of our culture (as Ulmer puts it in Electronic Monuments) that we usually do not think about in connection with other accidents.
Furthermore, the notion of "slowness" could counter the instantaneous dromosphere--not that it could abolish the dromosphere, but that it can work at as a way to make it intelligible. While above I read the sign as "slow children at play," we might want to take it with its originally intending meaning "Slow. Children at Play." Does this work as a metaphor for electrate thinking? Or is slowness only related to "critical thinking."
If we are working toward looking at the "accident as a sign" (Virillio), I think that Warning/Traffic signs might be a good way to explore our disaster and accident--as part of our ta(i)le.
While bluffing takes place when you bet like you have a better hand than you actually have (or in the nuclear situation, than you are actually willing to lay on the table), "Slow Play" "is when betting weakly or passively with a strong holding rather than betting aggressively with a weak one. The flat call is one such play. The objective of the passive slow play is to lure opponents into a pot who might fold to a raise, or to cause them to bet more strongly than they would if the player had played aggressively (bet or raised). Slow playing sacrifices protection against hands that may improve and risks losing the pot-building value of a bet if the opponent also checks" (Wikipedia).
Slow play seems like it might be a "boring" way to play poker or perhaps just not as profitable, as this poker site claims:
"The object of poker is to win the most money. That's it - that is your goal.
In other words, all the strategies you employ are just a means to one end: the money. In light of that, one of the mistakes I see the majority of newcomers make is slow-playing. Or slow-playing too much.
Slow-playing, for the most part, is counterproductive. If your goal is to get the most money in the pot, how are you going to do that by checking? You build pots by betting your big hands, not by lurking in the weeds with them"(Skolovy).
This is the view of poker that seeks to maximize gain and to risk a lot to get it. Slow Play, in Poker player's opinions, seems kinda like the 'sucker' payoff. However, the author is sure to add that he just means use slow play sparingly--not never: "In poker, one strategy is never always correct. You always need to take into consideration the table dynamics, your image, your opponents' playing tendencies, etc. before you decide how to act" (Skolovy).
The question for us is whether poker remains a good analogical contrast for our CATTt. Should we think about 'slow play' as an option? Does this correspond more to the idea of the 'gift'.
 |
| http://www.freewebs.com/slowchildrenatplay/pictures.htm |
Child's Play
I like this sign because it combines (via word association/punning) the language of Poker and the more care-free, enjoyable version of play that we associate with children (if we read the sign 'incorrectly' as "Slow children at play"). Children do not play poker in the street, but rather foursquare. Foursquare is an interesting game because it has nothing to do with maximizing one's gain or winnings, but rather occupying the position of the "Ace" for the longest period of time. When the game is over, no one can say that they really "won" and if you get "out" you are always able to get back in after watching the game from the sidelines.
Or perhaps, better yet, we could think about the game of hopscotch, or as it is known in Germany, "Himmel und Holle"
"In Germany, Austria, and Switzerland the game is called Himmel und Hölle (Heaven and Hell) although there are also some other names used, depending on the region. The square below 1 or the 1 itself are called Erde (Earth) while the second to last square is the Hölle (Hell) and the last one is Himmel (Heaven). The first player throws a small stone into the first square and then jumps to the square and must kick the stone to the next square and so on, however, the stone or the player cannot stop in Hell so they try to skip that square"
Earth, Heaven, Hell--a certain mythological relevance. Again, not played for any specific gain--just avoid hell.
Accident as Warning Sign
Furthermore, that the sign is in the form of a warning references a common accident: hitting kids with cars--a common, everyday accident sacrificed to the values of our culture (as Ulmer puts it in Electronic Monuments) that we usually do not think about in connection with other accidents.
Furthermore, the notion of "slowness" could counter the instantaneous dromosphere--not that it could abolish the dromosphere, but that it can work at as a way to make it intelligible. While above I read the sign as "slow children at play," we might want to take it with its originally intending meaning "Slow. Children at Play." Does this work as a metaphor for electrate thinking? Or is slowness only related to "critical thinking."
If we are working toward looking at the "accident as a sign" (Virillio), I think that Warning/Traffic signs might be a good way to explore our disaster and accident--as part of our ta(i)le.
Can't read my. . .can't read my. . . can't read my poker face
Bluffing and Seduction
In our final Prisoner's dilemma discussion over email, Ulmer mentioned that we might want to think about Von Neumann's relationship to poker as a potential frame for the contrast of the CATTt. Rather than throw away poker and contrast it to another game, I would like to point to the most common strategy of poker: deception. Poundstone writes, "Good poker players do not simply play the odds. They take into account the conclusion other players will draw from their actions and sometimes deceive other players" (40). Now, a person's ability to deceive is also related to his or or her ability to seduce, a key concept that I will elaborate on in my posts on Baudrillard. There are a couple different deceptive strategies. The most popular one, and the one that game theory is predicated on, is the "bluff." Bluffing occurs when you try to convince your opponents you have a better hand than you actually do. You bet high and take the risk in order to maximize your profit.
Bluffing in History
Poundstone points to the 'arms race' as an example of the US attempting to bluff by pretending to want to cooperate in an 'open skies plan'. Though some may disagree, it seems clear that "the administration may have been so confident that the Soviet's would never agree that they felt they could bluff and not be called on it [ . . .]" (188). So this 'bluff' didn't really work because the Soviet's did seem to agree at one point. It seems that the administration wanted to save face rather than admit they were the "sucker" who would try and cooperate. . .or perhaps they were determined to "not negotiate with [Soviets]" (as we are unwilling to negotiate with terrorists--we will return to the problem of terrorism in a further post on Baudrillard).
In our final Prisoner's dilemma discussion over email, Ulmer mentioned that we might want to think about Von Neumann's relationship to poker as a potential frame for the contrast of the CATTt. Rather than throw away poker and contrast it to another game, I would like to point to the most common strategy of poker: deception. Poundstone writes, "Good poker players do not simply play the odds. They take into account the conclusion other players will draw from their actions and sometimes deceive other players" (40). Now, a person's ability to deceive is also related to his or or her ability to seduce, a key concept that I will elaborate on in my posts on Baudrillard. There are a couple different deceptive strategies. The most popular one, and the one that game theory is predicated on, is the "bluff." Bluffing occurs when you try to convince your opponents you have a better hand than you actually do. You bet high and take the risk in order to maximize your profit.
Bluffing in History
Poundstone points to the 'arms race' as an example of the US attempting to bluff by pretending to want to cooperate in an 'open skies plan'. Though some may disagree, it seems clear that "the administration may have been so confident that the Soviet's would never agree that they felt they could bluff and not be called on it [ . . .]" (188). So this 'bluff' didn't really work because the Soviet's did seem to agree at one point. It seems that the administration wanted to save face rather than admit they were the "sucker" who would try and cooperate. . .or perhaps they were determined to "not negotiate with [Soviets]" (as we are unwilling to negotiate with terrorists--we will return to the problem of terrorism in a further post on Baudrillard).
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)