Postmodern Japan Forum 14

 

From Nathan Walker.

Hey, Earl, thanks for the great video of the undersea
volcano eruption (see Benkyo 4, part of a new series on the class website
or go to this address: http://www.pmel.noaa.gov/vents/nemo/explorer/ashes/inferno_flame.html). 
It looks very cool.  However, since the narrator didn’t describe
any of the characteristics of an undersea eruption seen here, my assumption
would be that the volcano was not erupting at the moment (as it would be
rather hard to miss).  I’m not a geology major, and I don’t know
a whole lot about this, so please correct me if I’m wrong, but I believe
that since a volcano is defined as 1 : a vent in the crust of the earth
or another planet from which usually molten or hot rock and steam issue;
also : a hill or mountain composed wholly or in part of the ejected material,
unless the volcano is erupting, the word ‚volcano‘ merely refers to the
fact that the mountain had been formed through volcanic eruptions. 
I believe that this description applies to the majority of the mountains
in the Rocky Mountain range, almost all of which are
dormant (again, correct me if I’m wrong), yet when people talk
about going skiing, they don’t say „I’m gonna go ski on a volcano“ though
this may technically be true.  So, when volcanoes are generally
referred to simply as mountains, unless they’re erupting, Murakami went
out of his way to refer to a mountain as a volcano, although nothing he
saw implied that this was the case.  This is a pretty small point,
which doesn’t really seem all that relevant now (I think I just wrote that
in the first place because I wanted to get something on the forum) but
I thought I should clarify regardless.<


 

X-OriginalArrivalTime: 14 May 2002 17:31:10.0612 (UTC)
FILETIME=[2358E540:01C1FB6D]


Look, a new dead horse to assault in various ways until
it is beyond all


recognition, certain or speculative.  Or perhaps
this particular horse is


merely dormant.  Perhaps we should nudge it with
a stick first.

Nathan, I was under the impression that the Rockies, like
the Appalachians,


are upthrust mountain ranges (or whatever the proper
term is for a range


that is formed by the buckling of a tectonic plate). 
Of course I could be


wrong since the last time I went to the Rockies, took
rock samples, and


analyzed them was never.

As for Mt. Murakami I do not imagine the narrator would
have a very accurate


image of what a submarine volcano would look like. 
I certainly don’t, which


is why I think that he imagined that it would not look
much different than a


volcano on land.  Regardless of what such can look
like, I think a


reasonable image for anyone to have of a volcano is a
conical mountain with


a well-defined caldera instead of a peak.  That
is what he probably saw.  To


argue that what there was to see was only a mountain
assumes that there was


specifically a real mountain to see, right?  But
it was just a mental image,


something akin to a dream.  If you see a volcano
in a dream or a


hallucination, is there any doubt as to whether it is
a volcano?

I looked at the link and watched the short video. 
I’ve seen others like it,


all vents or some small feature, extruding lava that
forms a dark crust


almost immediately.  It is like watching dark frosting
being squeezed from a


giant pastry bag.  What I am interesting in seeing
is a major eruption like


Pinatubo or St. Helens occur underwater though perhaps
the relative thinness


of oceanic crust prohibits such and event.

The name of this course is not PostModern Geology of Japan
(whatever that


would be), so I will stop here.

Subject: RE: undersea volcano

Date: Tue, 14 May 2002 20:29:59 -0700

Mime-Version: 1.0

Content-Type: text/plain; format=flowed


 

>Hi Nathan. I remember you arguing this before…saying
that what


>was named a volcano in „The Second Bakery Attack“ could
have been a


>mountain with a

>cavern on top.

>

>I think you are totally right in saying that many volcanos
are


>refered to as mountains, for skiiing and stuff. Then
you say that


>“Murakami went out of his way to refer to a mountain
as a volcano,


>although nothing he saw implied that this was the case,“
but we


>only know
that he saw a „volcano.
“ He didn’t describe it at all


>really. If it is important to your reading of the story
that the


>volcano be a mountain then that’s cool, but your assertion
is


>impossible to prove. It’s like saying „I saw a tiger
in my dream


>last night.“ and then someone in the Lit 152D forum
replying „No my


>friend, that was actually a robot made of amorphous
metal-alloy


>that assumed the appearance of a tiger.“ Since the only
concrete


>evidence of the narrator’s daydream is his recollection
of it, I


>think we should trust his word choice unless given a
substantial


>reason not to do so.

>

>Personally I think that the Freudian possibilities for
a volcano are


>way better than for a mountain in „The Second Bakery
Attack.“ The


>wealth of warm liquid about to burst out of a volcano
surely lends


>itself to interesting physiological analogies in the
analysis of


>the story. If the volcano is actually a mountain though,
it would


>be more like an unpoppable pimple on the otherwhise
clean and clear


>surface of the piece — aesthetically displeasing and
frustratingly


>incapable of releasing any sort of substance.

>

>Staying on the repulsive tip, I think the narrator was
probably


>day-dreaming about his mother’s breast. The volcano,
with its


>conical shape and porous tip, can be read as the narrator’s

>unconscious answer to the his real life hunger in the
story. Since


>the image of his mother’s milk-bearing breast is probably

>unacceptable to the middle-aged narrator, the volcano
displaces it


>in his daydream.

>

>

>Matt P

 

Some folks (Nathan I think) have been talking about Pulse
online but I


accidentally erased the emails. Have Pulse forum people
already met and


everything? I am watching the movie right now. Could
people send me some


emails they have already written about pulse?

Thanks, Matt


<div style=’background-color:‘><DIV>


Gah!&nbsp; I really don’t care about this anymore!&nbsp;
Matt, what you said in your e-mail was the point I was trying to make exactly:
since mountains are the default, there must be some significance to Murakami’s
decision to use a volcano.&nbsp; That’s it.&nbsp; I stupidly let
myself get side-tracked into geology to prove that mountains were, in fact,
the default.&nbsp; I am by now quite sorry I brought it up, and even
more sorry that I returned to the subject after seeing the volcano video.&nbsp;
Please forgive me.


Oh, by the way, Matt, I guess I’ll just forward the Kairo
e-mails to you for the forum&nbsp;(since a lot of them were mine anyway).


Hey Earl,

 I just wanted to start by saying that Swallow Tail
was indeed a great movie and I hope you make another screening for it.
I feel much would be gained from a second screening.


ok , I did not get my mid term paper to you electronically
by 5 yesterday . I hope you will forgive me if you receive it beyond the
original deadline. Here is where I am at with this and would love your
input.


   I was at first quite intrigued by the question
of the technology of subjectivity. I felt the question was very mystified
at the starting point (for me) but could possibly be quite rewarding as
a journey through its demystification. I began to take a close look at
Iron Man and Angel dust thinking that as I went through the two films and
gave them close viewing with Cure and elements of our texts in mind that
perhaps that would be a good first step in coming
to grips with the question itself.
( I know you said not to choose
questions that we didn’t understand but to be honest I didn’t feel I comprehended
any of the q’s completely).  anyhow, as I went through the films and
tried to get to the bottom of the question itself I began to feel more
and more like I had less and less of a clue as to the technology of subjectivity
in relation to these texts.  After reading some of your essays on
the subjectivity (and the technology of) which included critique of some
of the work of Delaurentis on the subject I felt I was even more perplexed
then before I began research. so i kind of thought that maybe I should
try to just start over on what seemed to be a simpler question.


  Somehow I feel that during the last few nights
my subconscious has absorbed and begun to demystify the question somewhat
and the last few days I began looking over some texts on semiotics and
structuralism (introductory type stuff) and some Barthes.


Now obviously I am mostly unlearned in the field of semiotics
and structuralism but I think I am coming closer to being able to apply
pieces of these theories to the question and the films in question.


  So as of right now I am mulling around with a
reading of Roland Barthe’s „plastics“ next to Tetsuro’s Iron Man as well
as a kind of Marxist reading of Iron Man in his all-consuming relationship
with modern industry and technology  yet the stark horror and alienation
that he faces himself  and his environment with once he begins to
see that he has merged completely with the iron of modern industrialism.
Also of course there is the aspect of Iron Man’s extended and destructive
masculinity through the power sturcture’s of the male dominated industrial
and economic world. This last point I think ties in with your and DeLaurentis‘
essays on subjectivity that  you have posted on your website for the
(i think paranoia and hysteria class?), though I am not sure I understand
the complexities of those essays.


   Angel Dust I think continues this conversation
of subjectivity from the female standpoint. The female detective is surrounded
by the male dominated narrative (like that of both Iron man’s urban, industrial
power and by the traditional masculine narrative of the hard-boiled detective/
hard working cop/ executive businessmen rolled into one..including the
actual total manipulation of her thoughts and eventually actions by Rei. 
In Angel Dust the female detective’s subjectivity is so constructed against
(or by) a back drop of masculinity that she must actually attempt to make
her self one with the mind and motives of killers of women. that said,
Sogo Ishi thickens the complexities of the traditional masculine narrative
by making Setsuko’s husband androgynous (living in the role of a man to
setsuko and dying within the line of female victims + both reproductive
organs).


Now, when we talk about the technologies of subjectivity,
in ‚technologies‘ are we talking about the mechanics, makeup, etc. of subjectivity?
I understand this term was championed by Foucault but I am not clear on
the details. Also in one of the De Laurentis essays I found on a google
search she speaks about ‚cyberfeminism‘ and uses the term „Technology of
subjectivity“ in a more postmodern and literal way. Should both angles
be applied in my paper or are you looking for a more defined take and philosophical
standpoint that I am missing?


Also in giving Cure another close viewing I found a great
deal of resonance in the films relation to technology (or its non-relation).
The carefully placed pieces of common technology against a dense and constant
back drop of decay, oxidation and structured filth.


So, I guess I’m asking if I’m on the right track with
this and if I am and you don’t think I should drop this topic and run from
it if you could give me a little steering and also recommend further essays
and reading that could help out as it comes along.


thanks Earl, see you in class.

Ethan Miller


<div style=’background-color:‘><DIV>

Yes, itís wrong. Cultures should remain absolutely separate
to maintain their purity.


Kidding.

Iím not entirely clear on all that Kris/Kristy writes,
but it seems like the main question is whether Godís omnipresence is similar
to the ghosts described by Masamune Shirow, [Like the shukan]
which are attached to all things in nature, and if so, whether this means
that Christianity is all about the Shukan.
I would have to say no. The argument for ghosts being representative of
the Shukan
would seem to be that, if ghosts are the remains of the soul remaining
after death, this would be a state of pure epistemological subjectivity
? the Shukan
? without any subjectivity in relation to others, since ghosts are presumably
beyond such things (as in Kairo). However, the fact that God is connected
to all things and ghosts are connected to all things does not necessarily
make them equivalent here. First, in my opinion, the state of the ghosts
Masamune describes is not pantheism. Individual ghosts/souls are too separate
for them to be pan-anything, and, in any case, they arenít generally worshipped
religiously. God, on the other hand, while omni-present, is not generally
considered to have separate identities (Shukan) in all the places where
He/She/It (dammit, this is why I hate writing about God ? itís so awkward
when you need to use pronouns) is present. So, if Christianity is about
Shukan, it would not be the Shukan of each location of Godís presence,
as with ghosts, but of the Shukan of God as a whole. And, it seems to me
that in the Bible, a great deal more is said about Godís Shutai
(subject in relation to others) than about Godís Shukan
(epistemological subject). &nbsp;Please write back if Iím misinterpreting
any of what youíre saying.


 

</DIV>What is a ghost anyway?  Is it your soul,
or your


subjectivity hanging around divorced from your body?

How do soul and subjectivity interelate, because

goodness knows its been pointed out enough times (by

Karatani, for one thing) that they are not the same

thing ever since Descartes redefined subjectivity,

although people often confuse the two? What do all of

the cranky german philosophers think?  Here’s one
of


their takes on personality which seems to be a big

part of the debate on Kairo.

If anyone wants to hear what Kant (groan) has to say

about personality, I got this out of the Kant

Glossary:

In the Paralogisms in A, the third paralogism is that

of personality, the conclusion of which is that the

soul is a person.  A paralogism Paralogisms ìinvolve

bogus judgments about the self.î

If you want to know how the manga creator of Ghost in

the Shell defined ghost, it’s „all things in nature

have ëghostsí.  This is a form of pantheism, and

similar to ideas found in Shinto or among believers of

the Manitou“–Masamune Shirow.

If you think about Christianity, it’s all about Shukan

too (like ghost in the shell, as Mr. Pelican pointed

out:-), because God is omnipresent, omniscent, and

omnipotent.  Is it wrong to cross-pollinate cultures

like this?

<div style=’background-color:‘><DIV>

Yes, itís wrong. Cultures should remain absolutely separate
to maintain their purity.


Kidding.

Iím not entirely clear on all that Kris/Kristy writes,
but it seems like the main question is whether Godís omnipresence is similar
to the ghosts described by Masamune Shirow, which are attached to all things
in nature, and if so, whether this means that Christianity is all about
the Shukan.
I would have to say no
. The argument for ghosts being representative
of the Shukan would seem to be that, if ghosts are the remains of the soul
remaining after death, this would be a state of pure epistemological subjectivity
? the Shukan ? without any subjectivity in relation to others, since ghosts
are presumably beyond such things (as in Kairo). However, the fact that
God is connected to all things and ghosts are connected to all things does
not necessarily make them equivalent here. First, in my opinion, the state
of the ghosts Masamune describes is not pantheism. Individual ghosts/souls
are too separate for them to be pan-anything, and, in any case, they arenít
generally worshipped religiously. God, on the other hand, while omni-present,
is not generally considered to have separate identities (Shukan)
in all the places where He/She/It (dammit, this is why I hate writing about
God ? itís so awkward when you need to use pronouns) is present. So, if
Christianity is about Shukan, it would not be the Shukan of each location
of Godís presence, as with ghosts, but of the Shukan of God as a whole.
And, it seems to me that in the Bible, a great deal more is said about
Godís Shutai (subject in relation to others) than about Godís Shukan (epistemological
subject). &nbsp;Please write back if Iím misinterpreting any of what
youíre saying.


Wow nathan why did the video trigger the first hostile
reaction? First of all murakami is  awriter. Writers do research.
If he didnt need it to be a volcano he would have said mountain. Volcanos
look different from mountains. Undersea volcanoes look different from undersea
mountains. And the image of „volcano“ – that word -carries a semantic range
that „mountain“ doesn’t. To say someone couldn’t tell the difference between
a volcano and mountain is irrelevant when the person isn’t describing something
that really happened in the first place. The recurrent vision in the story
is a deliberately crafted metaphor, transparent to its artificiality and
metaphoricity. To argue against it on terms such you have, is like arguing
against the story by saying, „Robbing a McDonalds won’t break a curse.“


Your parting shot is a good example of why anger doesn’t
really help intellectual exchange – to say that this isn’t „geology“ –
is rather unfair since you’re the one who reduced the question of the image
to geology in the first place, with your [erroneous] insistence that one
could not distinguish a volcano from a mountain.


Finally I need to remind you of academic freedom and
ask you reread you message calmly. I always find it chilling when someone
declares a topic closed or forbids further  discussion on any inquiry.
Watch the video again. I look forward to your resuming your earlier willingness
converse in the spirit that we have been conducting it.


Best,HI Nathan I must apologize for my messag oe

Earl


hey hey hey everybody,


jon buzan and me, tim powers

are on a WILD SHEEP CHASE/murakami panel

we didn’t come on monday so you didn’t mark us

on the list of panels

and if anyone still needs a panel they are

welcome to join us

_________________________________________________________________

Send and receive Hotmail on your mobile device: http://mobile.msn.com

Hello everyone,

     I want to start a panel for
battle royal and was wondering if anyone


who does not have a panel wants to join me.  i already
have one member of


the class with me, and i know there are a few people
who don’t have


groups.  i know this is a little bit late and I’ms
orry about it.  hope to


hear from people soon!

<div style=’background-color:‘><DIV>


I wasnít angry so much as exasperated, because everyone
kept arguing against me with the exact points I had been trying to make.
In my original e-mail, I wrote „Generally speaking, when a person sees
a mountain, undersea or not, they don’t immediately jump to the conclusion
that it’s a volcano. The fact that the narrator does make this leap, from
„big mound of rock“ to „cataclysmic time bomb“ seems to imply to me an
anxiety on the narrator’s part.“ My point here was not to say „No, it wasnít
a volcano, it was a mountain!“ I was simply trying to point out that the
fact that he saw a volcano and not a mountain was significant.


Matthew Hauge writes „If you see a volcano in a dream
or a hallucination, is there any doubt as to whether it is a volcano?“
No, thereís not. And the fact that the narrator had no doubt that he was
seeing a volcano, although he didnít describe any of the characteristics
of a volcano, is, I think, significant. Earlís video, which showed an undersea
volcano, displays a variety of characteristics not described by Murakami.
Because of the fact that he, in his vision, was nonetheless absolutely
sure that he was seeing a volcano means that this is a significant element
of the dream. Again, as I said in my original e-mail „Apparently without
thinking of what he was actually seeing, he automatically attributed it
with a dangerous element that there would be no reason to assume it had.“
He KNEW, looking at this mountain, that it was a volcano, and I had been
trying to point out that this surety that an element of danger existed
was significant, especially since he didnít describe anything which would
alerted him to this danger, visually (i.e. glowing, bubbles, a giant crater
at the top, etc).


In the next e-mail, I received, Matt stated that „If
it is important to your reading of the story that the volcano be a mountain
then that’s cool, but your assertion is impossible to prove,“ and, furthermore,
that „Personally I think that the Freudian possibilities for a volcano
are way better than for a mountain in „The Second Bakery Attack.“ Again,
this completely misreads what I was attempting to say. Matt seems to have
gotten the impression that I was saying „Thereís no point to their being
a volcano ? he should have said it was a mountain instead.“ No. I was trying
to say that the assertion that the mountain was a volcano was impossible
to prove based on the visual elements the narrator described, and therefore,
that the narratorís assertion of this fact is important, and that there
were probably reasons for it being a volcano (such as the excellent Fraud
references Matt goes on to point out.


At this point, I felt that the topic was a dead horse,
since we havenít talked about Murakami for weeks, and my attempt to clarify
what I had meant failed miserably. My second attempt faced equally miserable
results. Earl writes „If he didnít need it to be a volcano he would have
said mountain.“ GrrrrÖ. Thanks for the tip, Earl. He goes on to describe
that, yes, the fact that it was a volcano was significant. He then refers
to my „parting shot,“ that we should leave geology out of this. This was
not meant as a parting shot. Instead, I was attempting to apologize for
reducing the question to geology in the first place. I realized afterwards
that this was a tangent, and an irrelevant one. I got side-tracked into
attempting to prove that piles of rock were generally considered mountains
and not volcanoes, to prove that Murakamiís insistence that the image was
a volcano was significant. This was a mistake. Rather than trying to prove
that the volcano was significant, I should have focused on what the actual
significance of the volcano was. Finally, I am not „hostile“ or „angry.“
I am, however, increasingly annoyed that no one seems to have gotten the
point of what I was trying to say (which is my fault, Iíll admit). I am
absolutely NOT trying to close off this discussion, if anyone else wants
to talk about it. &nbsp;However, when someone else writes to tell me
that „itís not a mountain, itís a volcano, and thereís probably some reason
for that,“ I fully intend to ignore them. Iíd be happy to talk about what
the significance of it being a volcano is, or about anything else related
to any of the books or movies for the course, but Iím starting to feel
like a broken record in a language no one else speaks.



>Hi Nathan. I remember you arguing this before…saying
that what


>was named a volcano in „The Second Bakery Attack“ could
have been a


>mountain with a

>cavern on top.

>

>I think you are totally right in saying that many volcanos
are


>refered to as mountains, for skiiing and stuff. Then
you say that


>“Murakami went out of his way to refer to a mountain
as a volcano,


>although nothing he saw implied that this was the case,“
but we


>only know that he saw a „volcano.“ He didn’t describe
it at all


>really. If it is important to your reading of the story
that the


>volcano be a mountain then that’s cool, but your assertion
is


>impossible to prove. It’s like saying „I saw a tiger
in my dream


>last night.“ and then someone in the Lit 152D forum
replying „No my


>friend, that was actually a robot made of amorphous
metal-alloy


>that assumed the appearance of a tiger.“ Since the only
concrete


>evidence of the narrator’s daydream is his recollection
of it, I


>think we should trust his word choice unless given a
substantial


>reason not to do so.

>

>Personally I think that the Freudian possibilities for
a volcano are


>way better than for a mountain in „The Second Bakery
Attack.“ The


>wealth of warm liquid about to burst out of a volcano
surely lends


>itself to interesting physiological analogies in the
analysis of


>the story. If the volcano is actually a mountain though,
it would


>be more like an unpoppable pimple on the otherwhise
clean and clear


>surface of the piece — aesthetically displeasing and
frustratingly


>incapable of releasing any sort of substance.

>

>Staying on the repulsive tip, I think the narrator was
probably


>day-dreaming about his mother’s breast. The volcano,
with its


>conical shape and porous tip, can be read as the narrator’s

>unconscious answer to the his real life hunger in the
story. Since


>the image of his mother’s milk-bearing breast is probably

>unacceptable to the middle-aged narrator, the volcano
displaces it


>in his daydream.

>

~Brian


whats up guys,


have not contributed much to the forum lately, so I decided
to do the cheap


thing and send in my paper, hopefully ill have time to
write a few more


contributions later.  Sorry,

Josh Barlas

Japanese Postmodernism

05/15/02

Charisma
Kurosawa. Kiyoshi’s film delves into the themes of morality and


power. The
„rules of the world“ that are
defined in Charisma
can be read as


a sterling example of Nietzsche’s will to power; the
characters‘ consequent


reactions, as examples of slave and master morality.
Within the film, the


protagonist, Yabuike, has a revolution of moralities,
which consequently


make it possible for him to understand, and restore the
rules of the world.

In his books
Beyond Good and Evil
, and Genealogy
of Morals
Nietzsche


develops and expounds his theories about the ‚will to
power‘, and the


subsequent ‚master and slave moralities‘. At a time when
fellow theorists


were beginning to seriously doubt the causality of the
human will, doubted


even its existence, Nietzsche formed his own theory about
the human will. He


believed that the driving force in humanity is a will
to power, and that all


actions are a cause of this will. „…suppose all organic
functions could be


traced back to this will to power and one could also
find in it the solution


of the problem of procreation and nourishment – it is
one problem – then one


would have gained the right to determine all efficient
force univocally as –


will to power.“ (a 48) (It is interesting that he used
the phrase ‚all


organic functions‘ considering Charisma involves power
struggles between


both humans, and the fauna of the forest.) He believed
that the powerful


were the good, because they perfectly exhibited this
will, and that what are


thought of generally as ‚morals‘ are actually reactionary
inventions of


those without power. “ ‚Exploitation‘ does not belong
to a corrupt or


imperfect and primitive society: it belongs to the essence
of what lives, as


a basic organic fiction; it is a consequence of the will
to power, which is


after all the will of life.“ (a 203)

Nietzsche goes on to organize a caste system of moralities
(in both Beyond


Good and  , and Genealogy of Morals), which narrow
down to slave morality


and master morality. Because Nietzsche believed that
the will to power was


the primary human function, he believed that the most
powerful people, and


the morality that they possess, were the most ‚good‘,
despite any lack of


compassion for humankind. „The noble human being separates
from himself


those in whom the opposite of such exalted, proud states
find expression: he


despises them. It should be noted immediately that in
this first type of


morality the opposition of ‚good‘ and ‚bad‘ means approximately
the same as


’noble‘ and ‚contemptible. „‚ (a 204) Slave morality,
conversely, is the


reaction to a lack of power in individuals. Nietzsche
believed that at this


point, human beings had largely succumb to a slave morality.
He argued that


the invention of contemporary notion of morality was
a reaction to, and


indictment of the ruling class. He believed that weakness
and stupidity were


character traits of slave morality. „Suppose the violated,
oppressed,


suffering, unfree, who are uncertain of themselves and
weary, mobilize: what


will their moral valuations have in common? Probably,
a pessimistic


suspicion about the whole condition of man will find
expression, perhaps a


condemnation of man also with his condition.“ (a 207)

As Kurosawa’s Charisma begins, Yabuike, a policeman, clearly
exhibits what


Nietzsche would define as a slave morality. His inability
to make crucial


decisions at work lead to his removal from duty. At the
beginning of the


film he does not sit down, or make a phone call to his
family (who he has


obviously abandoned), without direct orders from a superior.
Nietzsche


writes, „One feels contempt for the cowardly, the anxious,
the petty,- those


intent on narrow utility; also for the suspicious with
their unfree glances,


those who humble themselves, the doglike people who allow
themselves to be


maltreated…“ (a 204-205) Yabuike definitely allows
himself to be


maltreated while meeting various people in the forest.
He is automatically a


tool for the foresters to use in taking pictures of Charisma,
finding


hallucinogenic mushrooms, and for Kiriyama in taking
care of the tree.


Nakasone refers to Yabuike as a dog in conversation with
Tsuboi, „As long as


we keep him fed. I know something about dogs. Watch out.
One false move and


he’ll bite.“

Even simply going into the woods – allowing himself to
be left anywhere with


disregard, retreating from society, abandoning his family
– would be


considered a series of acts of slave morality. „Every
choice human being


strives instinctively for a citadel and a secrecy where
he is saved from the


crowd, the many, the great majority – where he may forget
‚men who are the


rule,‘ being their exception – excepting only the one
case in which he is


pushed straight to such men by a still stronger instinct,
as a seeker after


knowledge in the great and exceptional sense.“ (a 37) 
But there is a


specific moment in the movie, in which Yabuike begins
to depart from the


slave morality that seemed to have drown him in a well
of apathy. At a point


in which Kiriyama is ordering him around, Yabuike finally
finds the strength


to assert himself, „You listen to me. Don’t order me
around like a dog. I


didn’t come to this forest for food.“ It is at this moment
that Yabuike


begins to develop his agency and his morally begins to
shift. His


self-defense is the first step in Yabuike’s rise to power.

In the second scene of the movie, which depicts the cause
for Yabuike’s


release from duty, we see him arriving at a hostage scene.
As Yabuike


arrives at the scene, the hostage-taker hands him a slip
of paper. The


single demand for the hostage – „Restore the rules of
the world.“ Yabuike


draws his weapon and obtains an opportunity to shoot
the perpetrator, but


resists out of pity, or a hope to. save both. In the
end of the scene the


hostage and his taker end up dead. Nietzsche would consider
this an example


when moralities do not coincide with a given profession.
He believed that a


policeman should, as a responsibility to the power he
has, should not be


sympathetic. „The proud awareness of the extraordinary
privilege of


responsibility, the consciousness of this rare freedom,
the power over


oneself and over fate, has in his case penetrated to
the profoundest depths


and become instinct, the dominating instinct.“ (b 60)
In Yabuike’s case


sympathy prevents him from doing his job efficiently.
He has ignored his


privilege of responsibility, and seemingly ignored ‚the
rules of the world‘.

Within Charisma there are several various power disputes,
which all in some


way help to define ‚the rules of the world‘. There are
struggles amongst


individuals and groups for control of Charisma. The vagrant
mental patient,


Kiriyama seems to represent a philosophical/emotional
motive for preserving


the tree. Nakasone, Tsuboi, and the other forestry workers
seem to represent


an economic motive for removing the tree. Jinbo and her
sister Chizuru seem


to represent a scientific motive for destroying the tree.
Yabuike – once a


tool for each of the groups – winds up being a vied after
source of power.


Charisma and the rest of the forest exhibit another exceptional

power-struggle in the movie. It comes to light that Charisma
may be the


cause for the dilapidation of the forest. According to
Jinbo, „The problem


is Charisma’s roots secrete a virulent toxin. Charisma
isn’t choosy about


how it survives. Although it looks weak, it is poisoning
the other trees, so


that it alone will survive.“ This opinion is generally
accepted by all


groups involved, so the question comes into play: is
it right to sacrifice


the one for the good of the many? Nietzsche might phrase
the question: does


the powerful individual deserve to die at the hands of
the slave masses, or


does the powerful deserve to exist at the expense of
the powerless?  He


would definitely side with the powerful individual, and
hence in favor of


Charisma.

There is a point in the movie, when explaining to Yabuike
why preserving


Charisma is so important, that Kiriyama defines the rules
of the world, „The


forest is a battlefield, all kinds of plants five and
die. If Charisma alone


survives, if that’s the rule, that’s just how it is,
right? The strong


survive, that’s just the rule here … So you save the
whole forest, you’re


only doing it for yourself ..My goal is to restore the
rules of the forest,


which are probably the rules of the world. See what I
mean? For that, you


need force, which is why I need you.“ So the rules of
the world, of nature,


are in favor of the strong and powerful over the weak
masses. That Charisma


alone should survive. Nietzsche expresses a very similar
opinion in Beyond


Good and Evil, „Moralities must be forced to bow first
of all before the


order of rank-, their presumption must be brought home
to their conscience –


until they finally reach agreement that it is immoral
to say: ‚what is right


for one is fair for the other“‚ (a 149) So Kiriyama’s
definition of the


rules of the world are correspondent to Nietzscheís favor
for master


moralities over slave moralities.

After the original Charisma is destroyed, Yabuike has
a vision of a huge


tree growing. The vision presumably leads him to a dead
tree, which he from


then on claims to be another Charisma. The other groups
seem to follow


Yabuike’s lead, and continue attempts at purchasing or
destroying the new


Charisma (despite the fact that Jinbo, a botanist, inspects
the tree, and


concludes that it is dead and of a different species).
This ability to name


and define new things, the ability to create meaning,
is an intense master


morality. „The lordly right of giving names extends so
far that one should


allow oneself to conceive the origin of language itself
as an expression of


power on the part of the rulers: they say ‚this is this
and this,‘ they seal


every thing and event with a sound and, as it were, take
possession of it.“


(b 26) So simply Yabuike’s ability to generate new meanings
is a powerful


characteristic that points toward a complete shift away
from the slave


morality that he exhibited at the beginning of the movie.

 In a situation that is very reminiscent of the first
hostage scene, Jinbo


is held at gun-point by the man who is attempting to
purchase Charisma (both


the first and the second), and Yabuike is the only one
who can save her.


Where, in the first scene, Yabuike did not have the strength
to perform the


duties of his job – the second time around he draws his
gun and does not


hesitate to fire, ultimately killing the man. This power
to embrace pain, or


violence as a means is also a sign of Yabuike’s shift
into master morality.


„The essential characteristic of a good and healthy aristocracy,
however, is


that it experiences itself not as a function (whether
of the monarchy or of


the commonwealth) but as their meaning and highest justification
– that it


therefore accepts with good conscience the sacrifice
of untold human beings,


for its sake, must be reduced and lowered to incomplete
human beings, to


slaves, to instruments.“ (a 202) So essentially the willingness,
or perhaps,


the power to sacrifice is one paralleled to master morality.
Yabuike now


exhibits the willingness to promote violence in the

accumulation/preservation of power.

 In Yabuike’s prolific monologue to Chizuru he justifies
the preservation of


Charisma.

 „If you had to choose between one special tree and
the whole forest, which


would choose?  It’s a very difficult question, but
there’s really only one


answer. The will to five and the will  to kill are
the same. So your sister


says. So what to do… If one lives the other dies. If
they  both try to


live, both die. There is no right answer. Or rather,
the problem is in the


way the  question is posed. Both are trying to live,
so both should live.


That’s the way things are. If  each kills the other
it means extinction.


That’s also how things are. If each kills the other it 
means extinction.


That’s also how things are. But that would mean chaos.
Kiriyama says  that


rules and force can prevent that. That was my line of
work. I did it without


a second  thought. But I finally understand I’m
fine just as I am, an


average man. That’s plenty. There  weren’t any special
trees and there


wasn’t any whole forest. Just a lot of average trees, 
growing everywhere.


That’s all there ever was.“ Yabuike

 „Then what is it that you’re trying to do?“ Chizuru

 „Letting some five, killing others, Just the way
things are.“ Yabuike

 So Yabuike and Nietzsche believe in the same natural
order of things.


Nietzsche believed that the strongest, the most powerful,
deserves to


survive upon the backs of others.

 „Refraining mutually from injury, violence and placing
one’s will on a par


with that of  someone else – this may become, in
a certain rough sense, good


manners among individuals  if the appropriate conditions
are present (namely


if these men are actually similar in strength  and
value standards and


belong together in one body). But as soon as this principle
is  extended,


and possibly even accepted as the fundamental principle
of society, it


immediately  proves to be what it really is ? a
sill to the denial of life,


a principle of disintegration and  decay.“ (a 203)

 In the end of the film Yabuike is able to destroy
the second Charisma


carelessly. When he discovers another sprout in the desiccated
tree-trunk,


he is indifferent to its fate. Charisma no longer needs
to be that tree.


Yabuike had the power to turn any tree into a Charisma.
Kiriyama realized


this when he told Yabuike, „You are Charisma.“ He said
this when he made the


decision to flee he forest. And, in fact had come to
embody what Charisma


was. Yabuike wheeled what seemed to be a lifeless corpse,
in a vein attempt


at saving him. As he approached the city, he called his
old boss, who


replied to Yabuike in a terrified voice, „What have you
done?“ At that


moment Yabuike reaches a clearing to view an apocalyptic,
war scene –


complete with black helicopters. Previously, the large
tree that he watched


appear, was eerily reminiscent of an atomic explosion.
So in the end Yabuike


is truly Charisma, in that the entire forest was destroyed
in the


preservation of one. Yabuike has restored the rules of
the world, and it was


his transition into and embrace of a master morality
that gave him the power


to do this.

 

Bibliography:

(a) Nietzsche, Friedrich. Beyond Good and Evil. Walter
Kaufmann TR. New


York: Vintage.  1886

(b) Nietzsche, Friedrich. Genealogy of Morals. Walter
Kaufmann, R. J.


Hollingdale TR.

 New York: Vintage. 1887

(c) Interview with Kurosawa Kiyoshi

 www.midnighteye.com/interviews/kiyoshi-kurosawa-shtmI

(d) Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy

 http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/nietzsche/

I’m not sure how to site movies, but if you let me know
how, I’D redo the


bibliography and turn it back in.

 

.ucsc.edu

Bcc:

Subject: panels that were formed on Monday

Date: Wed, 15 May 2002 13:52:35 -0700

Mime-Version: 1.0

Content-Type: text/plain; format=flowed

Message-ID: <F49qQyxTJtgzKG5DJ0M0001ac27@hotmail.com>

X-OriginalArrivalTime: 15 May 2002 20:52:41.0805 (UTC)
FILETIME=[74AC47D0:01C1FC52]

Hey everybody,

sorry it took me so long to post this, but here are the
panels that formed


on Monday during class.

Cure Panel

5 people

scheduled for 5/20/02

Kairo panel

6 people

scheduled for 5/24/02

Japanese Literature Panel

(not sure how many people)

Scheduled for 5/22/02

Iwai Shunji panel

9 people

Scheduled for 5/29/02

(Some of these people are breaking off into a Swallowtail
Butterfly panel,


but I’m not sure how many)

Charisma Panel

3 people

5/24/02

I know there are a couple of other panels that people
want to form, but I’m


not sure when they would be scheduled for or how many
people are interested.


Hope this helps.

Sarah Johnson

_____________________________

 

hmm. in a completely unrelated murakami question, i wasn’t
quite clear on


the significance of the sheep entity. We have heard that
sheep have an


interesting history in Japan, having been introduced
just a little over a


hundred years ago, representing contact with the west,
government supported


sheep farming, etc (i may be missing something here),
as well as sheep being


used as geiger counting canaries so to speak. Why the
choice of a mystical


sheep entity to create some mysterious fascistic empire?
what is the sheep’s


purpose? is it just murakami’s abusrd-ization of japan’s
actions prior to


and during wwII?

it is quite possible i missed this discussion in class.
forgive me

also interestingly enough, i don’t know how many of you
have seen ghost in


the shell, but having written my midterm on it, i cant
help but consider the


sheep’s taking over of different individual’s minds comparable
to Project


2501’s ghost hacking. they’re both able to slip in and
out of any person


that serves there purpose, and usually end up leaving
the person „hella


fucked up“ after their departure. i’m not sure i can
see the sheep’s actions


as some sort of civil/human/cyborg/ovine rights struggle,
which in a sense,


was what project 2501 was doing. if the sheep is in fact
trying to create a


new reality where shutai and shukan are inextricably
bound (or perhaps the


same thing), it isn’t easy to see.

comments?

Date: Wed, 15 May 2002 12:08:52 -0700

Mime-Version: 1.0

Content-Type: text/html

X-Stn-Info:

<div style=’background-color:‘><DIV>

I wasnít angry so much as exasperated, because everyone
kept arguing against me with the exact points I had been trying to make.
In my original e-mail, I wrote „Generally speaking, when a person sees
a mountain, undersea or not, they don’t immediately jump to the conclusion
that it’s a volcano. The fact that the narrator does make this leap, from
„big mound of rock“ to „cataclysmic time bomb“ seems to imply to me an
anxiety on the narrator’s part.“ My point here was not to say „No, it wasnít
a volcano, it was a mountain!“ I was simply trying to point out that the
fact that he saw a volcano and not a mountain was significant.


Matthew Hauge writes „If you see a volcano in a dream
or a hallucination, is there any doubt as to whether it is a volcano?“
No, thereís not. And the fact that the narrator had no doubt that he was
seeing a volcano, although he didnít describe any of the characteristics
of a volcano, is, I think, significant. Earlís video, which showed an undersea
volcano, displays a variety of characteristics not described by Murakami.
Because of the fact that he, in his vision, was nonetheless absolutely
sure that he was seeing a volcano means that this is a significant element
of the dream. Again, as I said in my original e-mail „Apparently without
thinking of what he was actually seeing, he automatically attributed it
with a dangerous element that there would be no reason to assume it had.“
He KNEW, looking at this mountain, that it was a volcano, and I had been
trying to point out that this surety that an element of danger existed
was significant, especially since he didnít describe anything which would
alerted him to this danger, visually (i.e. glowing, bubbles, a giant crater
at the top, etc).


In the next e-mail, I received, Matt stated that „If
it is important to your reading of the story that the volcano be a mountain
then that’s cool, but your assertion is impossible to prove,“ and, furthermore,
that „Personally I think that the Freudian possibilities for a volcano
are way better than for a mountain in „The Second Bakery Attack.“ Again,
this completely misreads what I was attempting to say. Matt seems to have
gotten the impression that I was saying „Thereís no point to their being
a volcano ? he should have said it was a mountain instead.“ No. I was trying
to say that the assertion that the mountain was a volcano was impossible
to prove based on the visual elements the narrator described, and therefore,
that the narratorís assertion of this fact is important, and that there
were probably reasons for it being a volcano (such as the excellent Fraud
references Matt goes on to point out.


At this point, I felt that the topic was a dead horse,
since we havenít talked about Murakami for weeks, and my attempt to clarify
what I had meant failed miserably. My second attempt faced equally miserable
results. Earl writes „If he didnít need it to be a volcano he would have
said mountain.“ GrrrrÖ. Thanks for the tip, Earl. He goes on to describe
that, yes, the fact that it was a volcano was significant. He then refers
to my „parting shot,“ that we should leave geology out of this. This was
not meant as a parting shot. Instead, I was attempting to apologize for
reducing the question to geology in the first place. I realized afterwards
that this was a tangent, and an irrelevant one. I got side-tracked into
attempting to prove that piles of rock were generally considered mountains
and not volcanoes, to prove that Murakamiís insistence that the image was
a volcano was significant. This was a mistake. Rather than trying to prove
that the volcano was significant, I should have focused on what the actual
significance of the volcano was. Finally, I am not „hostile“ or „angry.“
I am, however, increasingly annoyed that no one seems to have gotten the
point of what I was trying to say (which is my fault, Iíll admit). I am
absolutely NOT trying to close off this discussion, if anyone else wants
to talk about it. &nbsp;However, when someone else writes to tell me
that „itís not a mountain, itís a volcano, and thereís probably some reason
for that,“ I fully intend to ignore them. Iíd be happy to talk about what
the significance of it being a volcano is, or about anything else related
to any of the books or movies for the course, but Iím starting to feel
like a broken record in a language no one else speaks.


 

 

<DIV></DIV></div>Hey Everybody,

I was wondering what happened to the Giants
and


Toys/Tokyo
Drifter panel? I haven’t heard anything


more about it and I was interested in joining, or has

it just disintegrated?

Jessica

__________________________________________________

Do You Yahoo!?

LAUNCH – Your Yahoo! Music Experience

http://launch.yahoo.com

All,

When I last tried to send a message to the forum, Hotmail
gave me an error


message about one of the addresses.  It was truncated. 
I tried to type in


what had been cut off, but the To: field in Hotmail’s
compose window would


not allow any more characters.  I simply took out
that last address from the


field and sent the message.  That was unfair of
me.  I have split my forum


list in half so that this does not happen again. 
In doing this, I looked to


see if this truncation was happening elsewhere. 
I counted addresses in the


To: fields of messages from various forum members and
came up with 29.


There are 45 addresses in the list.  Perhaps some
are redundant, but I


cannot shake the feeling that some people are not getting
forum e-mails and


are perhaps not coming forward in class.

Please check your To: fields the next time you use Reply
All or whichever


method you use to send to the forum.

Matt


If I remember correctly, Earl told us that what is frightening
in movies

such as Cure and Kairo is that we are required to look intently at
something

that often refuses to be seen either clearly, or long enough to determine

what is there to see.  I ask why such a thing is disturbing.

After that question came to mind, the thought occurred to me that the

shadowy, blurry, indistinct shapes in Cure and Kairo do not tell the
viewer

(the sutured viewer too?) something very important, and that is whether
that

shape is someone or something capable of seeing, and whether it is,
in fact,

looking at ‚you‘.  I can imagine how disconcerting it would be
to see a

silhouette in the darkness and be unable to discern if it was something

living, and if it was looking at me.  Of course, knowing that
it was living

and looking at me would not necessarily make me more at ease.

Inspired by today’s class toward a state of mind in which I can be easily

spooked (what does one call that… spookability sounds absurd) I was
struck

(captivated, intrigued?) by the train whistle.  As I first stepped
out the

door, it sounded as though it were coming from the hills to the northwest.

As I walked with a friend down the stairs, the whistle sounded like
it was

in the south.  Back up the stairs and headed toward Porter, it
sounded like

it was in the northeast.  Granted, my mind was telling me all
sorts of

rational things like „the sound bounces off the buildings, hills, and

whatever trees are left“ and „there are no such things as ghost trains,
and

if there were, they’d be in campus lore right along with the mole-people
and

elf-land“, but I still could at least imagine that this omni-directional

train whistle (coming, of course, from a mysterious, omni-directional

ghost-train) as, to use a terminologically dense phrase, slightly creepy.

So would it not also be frightening to have to work at hearing a thing
as it

might seeing it?  If not, why is vision so privileged that it
offers us the

greatest opportunity to be frightened.

There was a meteor shower this last November (I think).  I went
up into the

forest above campus to watch since everywhere else I could reach reeked
of

light pollution.  I kept to the dirt roads and found a spot next
to a

clearing.  As I stood there, waiting for millions of comet-dust
grains to

find their interplanetary journey cut cruelly short by, of all things,
a

planet in their path, I heard something scramble through the bushes
and/or

leaf litter.  My mind was quietly telling me a semi-rational thing
like

„It’s only a mouse!  It’s only a mouse!“  Remember, though,
that it’s hard

to be calm and collecting when you’ve just received a fair dose of

adrenaline from standing alone in a meadow lit only by stars and having

heard an unidentifiable noise from a few feet behind.  In that
instance, I

did not even have the luxury, or should I say horror, to behold a vague

outline or shadow.

I now find it odd that the expression is „seeing is believing“ and not

„seeing is knowing so you can go to sleep at night without thinking
that the

coat rack in the corner bears you very ill will.“


sc.edu

Bcc:

Subject: Swallowtail Butterfly panel info

Date: Wed, 15 May 2002 17:47:13 -0700

Mime-Version: 1.0

Content-Type: text/html

Message-ID: <F50pGR881Np7vXee4fD00000215@hotmail.com>

X-OriginalArrivalTime: 16 May 2002 00:47:17.0312 (UTC)
FILETIME=[3A543400:01C1FC73]


<div style=’background-color:‘><DIV>hey guys, </DIV>

<DIV>&nbsp;</DIV>

<DIV>sorry i had to skip out right after class today.&nbsp;
i just wanted to re-hash the formation of this panel.&nbsp; </DIV>


<DIV>&nbsp;</DIV>

<DIV>ok so, as far as i know the people on the panel
are:</DIV>


<DIV>&nbsp;</DIV>

<DIV>me (Jude Evans)</DIV>

<DIV>Sarah Johnson</DIV>

<DIV>Kyle</DIV>

<DIV>Justin Ellerby</DIV>

<DIV>(and i think we had others, so if i missed you,
please shout out to us.)</DIV>


<DIV>&nbsp;</DIV>

<DIV>i say we get some ideas and get this show on
the road.&nbsp;anyone who wants to email do so.&nbsp; i&nbsp;
think sarah will be working on cinematographic styles, but i don’t know
what i’m doing yet.</DIV>


<DIV>&nbsp;</DIV>

<DIV>cheers,</DIV>

<DIV>jude</DIV></div><br clear=all><hr>Send
and receive Hotmail on your mobile device: Click Here

Hi Guys

this is great! I’m glad for the give and take, and I
apologize to Nathan – I was indeed missing his point exactly the way he
describes. The point of this is – converse- when someone is not understanding
you  – restate it. The other point is letting someone’s conversation
change your mind is very refreshing – but more importantly [and I’m speaking
from my own experience – this is not instructions to anyone else] the willingness
to have your mind changed is so important- and this is of course not something
that you can voluntarily decide to adopt. I’ve had my mind changed any
number of times by you guys this quarter and several times I was able to 
see and cognize my resistance to that change. It’s hard to do this but
it’s very important. Again this is not aimed at anyone but simply reporting
from the field.  I’ll give an example. Anyone see Marianne Solina’s
paper on $$Jack the Modernist$$ at the undergraduate colloquium? I was
completely against her premise when I first saw it during the semiotics
and psychoanalysis course. The day before the colloquium i went over her
paper with her in my office, giving her „sophisticated“ reasons for my
objections to some of her readings. As I did that, each one of my objections
seemed to bounce off against the cogency of her observations. While my
objections seemed grounded in my own reading of Glück, there was nothing
in her reading per se that could be refuted. I started loosening my hold
on that text. This took some shaking. I have probably published more pages
on Robert Glück than anyone living. And $Jack the Modernist$$ is the
novel that gave me the idea of writing Strategies of Deviance. Marianne
submitted this paper to a conference having never read a paper aloud anywhere
before this. The night before the conference she had a conversation with
someone the third of his career is grounded in his reading o Jack the Modernist
who told her twenty reasons why she was wrong. She held her ground, not
by refusing to listen but by restating her position to clarify it aganst
my objections. The next day she presented the paper as she had written
it knowing that i was in the audience. Listening to it then, I was won
over and said so. That was quite a feat. So i know how hard it is to become
willing to be persuaded to give up a position one has held. This is just
information.


best

earl


I’m not sure if any one got this


>Subject: On the naming of animals due to their inclusion
in our „reality“


>Date: Wed, 01 May 2002 16:19:45 -0700

>

>When the chauffer defines animals as worthy to be named
he does so due to


>three principles:  That they can display and return
affection, that they


>will reply to their name being called, and that they
move about by their


>own will.  The last of these three principles is
overlooking the naming of


>plants.  Plants such as  ferns are typically
named.  Due to the great


>variety of types of ferns people can attribute a sense
of individuality to


>ferns.  It is said that plants grow better while
they are spoken two and


>played music two.  In this respect they respond
to direct attention as well


>as affection.

>      They main premise of
this e-mail was to discuss the  logic used to


>determine weather or not it was worthy of receiving
a name.  The chauffer


>thoughts indicate that other than moving about by free
will it is emotional


>congruence and response to speech that relegates the
reception of a name.


>It is interesting that it is through sympathy or empathy
and mental


>understanding, that we as people interact with the world. 
With this


>connection it seems that the only reason we have for
naming another being


>is if it subscribes to our particular way of relating
with the world.


>There can be a number of thoughts arisen from this premise. 
For one, it


>depicts how viewing life from the chauffer’s perspective
will leave us cut


>off from a great majority of the world.  Dogs and
cats are able to relate


>to a number of different creatures outside that of humans. 
Does that


>indicate that dogs and cats are able to name members
of other races.  If so


>they would be able to relate to, and be connected with
a large number of


>creatures.  Perhaps if we as humans were to allow
our relation to things to


>be achieved through other means than sympathy, empathy
and understanding we


>would be more connected to the world around us. 
If we as humans trusted


>and fostered our intuitions to a greater degree we might
came to embrace a


>level of connection that has been available for quite
some time.


>      Such connections have
been present throughout much of human history.


>That have existed within some original religions and
many of  the


>indigenous cultures of the world.  It is these
connections with things


>around us that allow for a life consisting more of harmony
than of


>alienation and competition.  Other than discluding
things because we cannot


>perceive that they can interact with us on a few levels
it would be


>possible to include them because they share common traits
of existence.


>The most pervading and impactual themes that surround
us are those that


>make up the very nature of existence.  To come
into being, to grow, and to


>decay.  If we included all that falls under those
categories as something


>that is worthy of a name and acknowledgment as something
that can be


>interacted with, then we might find that destroying
the planet we live on


>and the people we live with as something that makes
no sense what so ever.


>


Hello everyone

To date I have made nine copies of love letter – eight
are currently in circulation. My five day stay in my office impeded progress
on making more copies. Today I made one when I went home between classes
precisely to do this.  Arithmetic was against me, however – I had
to return to campus for the next class before it was finished. Taught from
2.00 3.10 went over by 15 minutes, faculty meeting from 3.30 -5.15 and
phone conference scheduled from 5.30 to now makes it impossible for me
to get back to fetch it before the screening tonight. I’m sorry about this.
I would only ask that while you feel your frustration at the availability
of the tapes, please remember that we are the only course in North America
[conservatively speaking] to be studying this body of film work at all
– and indeed, if the library and the general tendency of teaching what
everybody knows and what’s easily available had been followed we wouldn’t
be having this problem at all but   you also would never have
seen these films, and in most cases never have heard of these films 
and/or filmmakers.  After I leave ucsc at the end of next fall students
will once again be safe from all alarm. They will be in no danger of hearing
about anything like this and everything presented will be monotonously
and ineluctably available. I hope they enjoy the avant-garde thrill of
Rashomon and the wonderous never-before-had experience of Seven Samurai
that everyone else has also had again and again and again.


Best


earlI thought that the power of the camera in Focus was
rather irksome.  All of


the character’s actions revolve directly around the camera. 
It is a


veritable sun if you consider that all things revolve
around it, as well as


the notion that all that matter consists of is light. 
The camera creates


purpose as well as controls it.  The protagonist’s
ability to disregard all


sense of agency when committing quite disagreeable acts
is very striking.


It seems that in his eyes everything is being carried
out for the sake of


the camera, so he does not have to attribute culpability
to his own actions.


  Focus gives us a frightening look at what happens
when you knowingly or


unknowingly enter into a situation where there is not
a need to take a


responsibility for agency. The protagonist’s actions
after the rape scene


are so removed it is as if he were already watching it
on T.V..  When the


anchor man goes in search of the gun it seems as though
all he cares about


is getting an emmy, or the equivalent of.  The camera
creates an alternate


reality where people (particularly soap opera junkies)
can get lost.  With


the creation of an alternate reality comes the possibility
of detachment


from a reality that has direct effect on people in it. 
Without concern for


the effect on other people comes the ability to sign
away all responsibility


for your own agency.  It is the thought ‚every thing
for the camera‘ that is


the lynch pin for this idea that promotes a loss of responsibility
for


agency.


Hi all,

I would be interested in joining the swallowtail

butterfly forum if it’s not too late.. let me know

what you guys have planned…

Thanks,

Jessica

— Jude Evans <heyjude42@hotmail.com> wrote:

<HR>

<div style=’background-color:‘><DIV>hey guys,

</DIV>

<DIV>&nbsp;</DIV>

<DIV>sorry i had to skip out right after class

today.&nbsp; i just wanted to re-hash the formation of

this panel.&nbsp; </DIV>

<DIV>&nbsp;</DIV>

<DIV>ok so, as far as i know the people on the panel

are:</DIV>

<DIV>&nbsp;</DIV>

<DIV>me (Jude Evans)</DIV>

<DIV>Sarah Johnson</DIV>

<DIV>Kyle</DIV>

<DIV>Justin Ellerby</DIV>

<DIV>(and i think we had others, so if i missed you,

please shout out to us.)</DIV>

<DIV>&nbsp;</DIV>

<DIV>i say we get some ideas and get this show on the

road.&nbsp;anyone who wants to email do so.&nbsp;

i&nbsp; think sarah will be working on cinematographic

styles, but i don’t know what i’m doing yet.</DIV>

<DIV>&nbsp;</DIV>

<DIV>cheers,</DIV>

<DIV>jude</DIV></div><br clear=all><hr>Send and

receive Hotmail on your mobile device: <a

href=’#topofpage‘>Click

HereDear Nathan,

I think I wasn’t very clear in my email–sorry,

Nathan. Let me explain and address you:

There are two versions of Ghost in the Shell.  The

first is the manga (japanese comic) written by

masamune shirow (a pseudonym).  It is mostly political

and examines human rights for not only cyborgs, but

for all beings in a newly internationalized,

information-based society.  It has very little to do

with the Christian religion except for a tiny hint

towards a Christian angel and a possibly transcedent

plane–but it’s only a hint.  His (masamune’s)

definition of ghost-a ghost is literally a bit of

organic brain tissue , usually all that’s left of the

person, but also comes to mean their „soul“-was the

one that involved pantheism and shinto.  The „shell“

of the title involves the cyborg body the tissue is

placed in. Karmic connection is used as the rhetoric

of the manga, NOT Christianity.

Now, the movie is entirely different.  While the

literal meanings of ghost and shell remain,  the

director, Mamarou Oshii,  has given it a clearly

heterosexual reproductive bent and huge Christian

overtones  by having the characters quoting 1

Corinthians 13, which is about the greatest gift God

gives (love, I’m gathering, but you can all argue with

me):  ÝÝ

  Ý 1Cr 13:1ÝÝ Though I speak with the tongues of men

and of angels, and have not charity, I am become [as]

sounding brass, or a tinkling cymbal.

  Ý 1Cr 13:2ÝÝ And though I have [the gift of]

prophecy, and understand all mysteries, and all

knowledge; and though I have all faith, so that I

could remove mountains, and have not charity, I am

nothing.

  Ý 1Cr 13:3ÝÝ And though I bestow all my goods to

feed [the poor], and though I give my body to be

burned, and have not charity, it profiteth me nothing.

  ÝÝ1Cr 13:4ÝÝ Charity suffereth long, [and] is kind;

charity envieth not; charity vaunteth not itself, is

not puffed up,

  Ý 1Cr 13:5ÝÝ Doth not behave itself unseemly,

seeketh not her own, is not easily provoked, thinketh

no evil; Ý

  Ý 1Cr 13:6ÝÝ Rejoiceth not in iniquity, but

rejoiceth in the truth;

  Ý 1Cr 13:7ÝÝ Beareth all things, believeth all

things, hopeth all things, endureth all things.

  Ý 1Cr 13:8ÝÝ Charity never faileth: but whether

[there be] prophecies, they shall fail; whether [there

be] tongues, they shall cease; whether [there be]

knowledge, it shall vanish away.

  Ý 1Cr 13:9ÝÝ For we know in part, and we prophesy in

part.

  Ý 1Cr 13:10ÝÝ But when that which is perfect is

come, then that which is in part shall be done away.

  Ý 1Cr 13:11ÝÝ When I was a child, I spake as a

child, I understood as a child, I thought as a child:

but when I became a man, I put away childish things.

  Ý 1Cr 13:12ÝÝ For now we see through a glass,

darkly; but then face to face: now I know in part; but

then shall I know even as also I am known. Ý

  Ý 1Cr 13:13ÝÝ And now abideth faith, hope, charity,

these three; but the greatest of these [is] charity.

So the shukan I’m discussing is more of the government

in both texts.  I was just saying that the Christian

leanings the Major has in the film would explain why

having the government in her head wouldn’t be as

distressing as it could be, if you are familiar with a

paradigm of your thoughts being „accessible“ to some

power all of the time. The ghost, in the film, is

collapsed into „human consciousness“ and „identity“

along with the concept of „soul“.

In the manga, the major is not identified with

Christianity, and so is more suspicious and protective

of her ghost (which can be „copied,“ like software, to

the destruction of the original in the manga).

So, I’m not making the „ghost“ in the manga the

equivalent of the „ghost“ in the film–they are

entirely different, and are defined differently.

But, I will agree with you that the God in the film is

more about Shutai, and a benevolent one, based on the

biblical passage above.  So the questions you raised

were really important, because it showed just how far

off the mark I was in expressing my position while you

made some some neat points on my supposed

position–since I never thought of the ghosts as dead,

but, in a way, they are, and the half-life (which is

shown as superior to the old, regular life of humans,

such as the poor „“ human in both the film

and the manga), I guess you can call it, raises some

interesting  questions about their subjectivity, as

you elucidated.


Dear Nathan,

I think I wasn’t very clear in my email–sorry,

Nathan. Let me explain and address you:

There are two versions of Ghost in the Shell.  The

first is the manga (japanese comic) written by

masamune shirow (a pseudonym).  It is mostly political

and examines human rights for not only cyborgs, but

for all beings in a newly internationalized,

information-based society.  It has very little to do

with the Christian religion except for a tiny hint

towards a Christian angel and a possibly transcedent

plane–but it’s only a hint.  His (masamune’s)

definition of ghost-a ghost is literally a bit of

organic brain tissue , usually all that’s left of the

person, but also comes to mean their „soul“-was the

one that involved pantheism and shinto.  The „shell“

of the title involves the cyborg body the tissue is

placed in. Karmic connection is used as the rhetoric

of the manga, NOT Christianity.

Now, the movie is entirely different.  While the

literal meanings of ghost and shell remain,  the

director, Mamarou Oshii,  has given it a clearly

heterosexual reproductive bent and huge Christian

overtones  by having the characters quoting 1

Corinthians 13, which is about the greatest gift God

gives (love, I’m gathering, but you can all argue with

me):  ÝÝ

  Ý 1Cr 13:1ÝÝ Though I speak with the tongues of men

and of angels, and have not charity, I am become [as]

sounding brass, or a tinkling cymbal.

  Ý 1Cr 13:2ÝÝ And though I have [the gift of]

prophecy, and understand all mysteries, and all

knowledge; and though I have all faith, so that I

could remove mountains, and have not charity, I am

nothing.

  Ý 1Cr 13:3ÝÝ And though I bestow all my goods to

feed [the poor], and though I give my body to be

burned, and have not charity, it profiteth me nothing.

  ÝÝ1Cr 13:4ÝÝ Charity suffereth long, [and] is kind;

charity envieth not; charity vaunteth not itself, is

not puffed up,

  Ý 1Cr 13:5ÝÝ Doth not behave itself unseemly,

seeketh not her own, is not easily provoked, thinketh

no evil; Ý

  Ý 1Cr 13:6ÝÝ Rejoiceth not in iniquity, but

rejoiceth in the truth;

  Ý 1Cr 13:7ÝÝ Beareth all things, believeth all

things, hopeth all things, endureth all things.

  Ý 1Cr 13:8ÝÝ Charity never faileth: but whether

[there be] prophecies, they shall fail; whether [there

be] tongues, they shall cease; whether [there be]

knowledge, it shall vanish away.

  Ý 1Cr 13:9ÝÝ For we know in part, and we prophesy in

part.

  Ý 1Cr 13:10ÝÝ But when that which is perfect is

come, then that which is in part shall be done away.

  Ý 1Cr 13:11ÝÝ When I was a child, I spake as a

child, I understood as a child, I thought as a child:

but when I became a man, I put away childish things.

  Ý 1Cr 13:12ÝÝ For now we see through a glass,

darkly; but then face to face: now I know in part; but

then shall I know even as also I am known. Ý

  Ý 1Cr 13:13ÝÝ And now abideth faith, hope, charity,

these three; but the greatest of these [is] charity.

So the shukan I’m discussing is more of the government

in both texts.  I was just saying that the Christian

leanings the Major has in the film would explain why

having the government in her head wouldn’t be as

distressing as it could be, if you are familiar with a

paradigm of your thoughts being „accessible“ to some

power all of the time. The ghost, in the film, is

collapsed into „human consciousness“ and „identity“

along with the concept of „soul“.

In the manga, the major is not identified with

Christianity, and so is more suspicious and protective

of her ghost (which can be „copied,“ like software, to

the destruction of the original in the manga).

So, I’m not making the „ghost“ in the manga the

equivalent of the „ghost“ in the film–they are

entirely different, and are defined differently.

But, I will agree with you that the God in the film is

more about Shutai,
and a benevolent one, based on the

biblical passage above.  So the questions you raised

were really important, because it showed just how far

off the mark I was in expressing my position while you

made some some neat points on my supposed

position–since I never thought of the ghosts as dead,

but, in a way, they are, and the half-life (which is

shown as superior to the old, regular life of humans,

such as the poor „ghost Hacked“ human in both the film

and the manga), I guess you can call it, raises some

interesting  questions about their subjectivity, as

you elucidated.


<div style=’background-color:‘><DIV>

Thanks.&nbsp; Yeah, that makes a lot more sense than what I’d thought
you were saying.&nbsp; Ghost in the Shell sounds interesting – I’ll
need to watch it at some point.&nbsp; Again, thanks for clarifying.

Nathan


</DIV>

<DIV></DIV>Dear Earl,

Although I’m flattered that you thought I wrote Re:

Murakami’s 100% Saudade To: Cole AkersÝ in forum 12,

the email there isn’t mine.

It’s someone else’s, so please find out whose it is

and put their name on it, I don’t want to take credit

for someone else’s work!!!  They must be uspet.  I DID

respond to cole on that one, but that wasn’t my

response.

I’m sorry, but I feel like a plagarist, even though it

was just an honest mistake.

Kristy Valenti


Patrick, after reading your email a couple times I think I understand
at

least in part what you are saying. Whether or not I got it, your entry
has

inspired a pretty drawn out response that begins attempting to derive
an

internal logic (heh heh) for Wild Sheep Chase, starting with how names
work

in the book. Someday this might become my midterm (I stink, Iím sorry
Earl.)

First thoughÖThis intuition you are talking about, that we should get
back

to, and which you seem to associate with indigenous cultures more than

anything, reminds me of the only book I remember from Intro to Cultural

Anthropology: Wisdom Sits in Places by a guy named Basso. It is about
how

the Apache have place-names based on narratives that are indelibly

associated with each place. These place-names and narratives serve
to

disseminate information, morals and values across generations.

I think that part of what you say about ferns is right  „Plants
such as

ferns are typically named.  Due to the great variety of types
of ferns

people can attribute a sense of individuality to ferns.“ I donít think
that

it is because there is a great variety of ferns (there is a greater
variety

of beetles, or arachnids) but I do think that more than emotional investment

a name signifies the necessarily singular attention which has turned
an

object into a named individual. I will try to explain thatÖ

The chauffeur in WSC say that herrings do not get named because they
canít

have an emotional bond with those that would name them. I think that
a more

accurate reason that herrings do not get named is because those that
would

name them cannot tell them apart. Before one names something, one must
be

able to distinguish it from the rest in order for the name to have
any

practical use.

Here is an example, devoid of the condition of emotional investment,
I

think, to illustrate my point. American soldiers call the each enemy
soldier

„Charlie“ indiscriminately because they all look the same in a rifle
sight

and their deadly purposes there is no reason to identify any individuals
in

particular. On the other hand think of detectives that have been tracking
a

suspect for a number of months. After a while they would probably get
tired

of calling him „Our mystery man“ or „John Doe“ and refer to their suspect
by

a given name. Criminals like the Unabomber or Jack the Ripper could
only

have been named after detectives determined that an individual was
behind

the numerous crimes that they committed. I think that this sort of
sustained

attention and recognition of individuality from outside is a prerequisite
to

naming that takes primacy over emotional attachment.

This individuality is not something that is cherished by the narrator
in the

Wild Sheep Chase. The narrator refuses to impose a regime of individuality

on his world through naming. He calls his cat the cat and explains
„I think

I just donít like names. Basically, I canít see whatís wrong with calling
me

ëmeí or you ëyouí or us ëusí or them ëthem.í“ (159) He uses this

identification based on positionality cognize to his own existence
as well.

He does not know that he exists because he thinks, but rather, because
„As

long as I stared at the clock, at least the world remained in motionÖas
long

as I knew the world was still in motion, I knew I existed.“ (61) His

position in relation to time affirms his reality.

The narratorís desire for externally accurate identification based on

positionality means that his dislike for the use of names comes from
their

inaccuracy in discourse. ëMeí and ëyouí though necessarily void of
meaning

all alone, signify self-evidently accurate concepts at their moment
in a

discourse.

The secretary on the other hand is not as concerned with discursive

accuracy. Instead he is given to generalizations which he thinks are

natural. He declares that there is an essential difference between
mediocre

realists and mediocre dreamers. These categories simply exist to him,
like

God and Man exist to Descartes, or actor and spectator exist to Aristotle.

In cognizing the role of „The Boss“ in the world, he makes a critical

distinction that is so mystical that it appears to be religious. He

distinguishes  „part that moves ahead and the part that drives
it ahead [the

Boss]“ and then preaches „The Boss will die. That one Will shall die.
Then

everything around that will shall perish. All that shall remain will
be what

can be counted in numbers. Nothing else will be left.“

Remember that the shepherd has always been amazed at how in the sheep
flock

each individual has a number in the hierarchy. How is this different
from

The Bossí regime? Isnít the Sheep Professor, who was once possessed
with the

same presence as The Boss but lost his power, analogous to the tragic
ram

described by the SheepHerder, because it too was deprived of its power
by

outside forcesÖ

Ugh. I guess I have something to talk about for the Murakami forumÖ

So does anybody want to meet tomorrow for a disussion of Murakami and
other

narratives we have read in class?

We can go over the resources from the Japanese Narratives class online
and

trade ideas and stuff. I have been working on –Wild Sheep Chase–
a lot and

I have recently been thinking of –The Second Bakery Attack– in relation
to

the Barthes quotes that DJ gave us. (I was going to type that out tonight

but I have too much fuggin HW.)

Matt

PS: I can testify that Kyle was on a lot of coffee tonight. Last I
saw he

was running at cars  on Heller Dr. with his thumb out, apparently
trying to

hitch a ride. Be Careful Kyle.

This is unrelated to our class somewhat but I love seeing the women
march

for TAKE BACK THE NIGHT. It gets me so amped and I get goose bumps.
Me and

Kyle were watching from a Porter Balcony jumping and screaming like
lil

chimps

_________________________________________________________________

Subject: in regards to coatracks and derailed trains and my own internet
insecurities

Date: Fri, 17 May 2002 08:51:36 +0000

Mime-Version: 1.0

Content-Type: text/html

Message-ID: <LAW2-F116pFVjCRGryW00000adb@hotmail.com>

X-OriginalArrivalTime: 17 May 2002 08:51:52.0335 (UTC) FILETIME=[16CE61F0:01C1FD80]

<div style=’background-color:‘><DIV>

I’ve realized this is quite pointless, you shouldn’t have had to read
this.&nbsp;

I’m <EM>sorry </EM>to sound like a skipping needle, but did people
receive my last e-mail regarding <EM>All She Was Worth</EM>?&nbsp;
I discussed the visual and the auditory and would like to build on what
I said before.&nbsp; I realized a little after I had sent the e-mail
that the instance from <EM>Cure </EM>I gave as an example of the
intimacy of sound might have worked rather to cement the primacy of vision
in our perception of the outside world.&nbsp; Kyle and Matt have been
working the same ground from this other angle and I’d like to respond.&nbsp;
(Would somebody please respond to me to verify my existence in the cyber
world? All you have to do is send me an e-mail that says „Uh huh“, as I
don’t know any of the nifty Japanese „yes, I am listening“ vocalizations.)&nbsp;
</DIV>

<DIV></DIV>

<DIV></DIV>

<DIV></DIV>

I am sick and miserable.&nbsp; I’ve had this cold all week.&nbsp;
I’m behind in all my classes.&nbsp; I had been looking forward to going
home to see my sisters dance (my brother, by the way, will be on national
television at some point in the SF ballet’s production of „Othello“, which
got really negative reviews, as one of the boys in the wedding party);
but I now realize that I’m bound to fall even farther behind in my homework,
spread my SC virus around the East Bay, and wind up at the party celebrating
Rosy’s last performance with BBT wearing too many layers to be fashionable
by anything but bag-lady standards and clenching a wadded kleenex to my
raw and scabby nose.&nbsp; A stray cat had kittens in our bushes and
we’ve adopted the entire family. I had been looking forward to their little
carrot tails, but I now know that my immune system is going to go into
hyperdrive and my allergies will be terrible, so I’ll have bloodshot eyes
and hives in addition to the snotty kleenex and crusty nose.&nbsp;
At any rate, I also mean to respond to Josh’s midterm and DJ’s response
to my first e-mail, write the Murakami e-mail and, oh yeah, finish my own
midterm (sorry, Earl, I also stink).&nbsp; I will!&nbsp; I am an
awesome force to reckon with.&nbsp; (Sorry about that, I had to pump
myself up.&nbsp; I feel like I’m wading against the current.)


Back to my point, and I meant to make this brief, have you seen many
medieval tapestries works of art?&nbsp; Have you noticed the lack of
depth, so figures look like paper dolls in a fourth grade panorama?&nbsp;
My friend, Molly, an art major, and I were discussing this last year and
I said something along the lines of (I feel oh so Platonic), „I don’t understand
how the artists could fail to recreate what they saw with their own eyes.
I’ve never studied disappearing points, but my drawings nonetheless have
depth because I’m reproducing the image as I’ve perceived it.“&nbsp;
And she responded, „They didn’t&nbsp;have such a high esteem of the
visual.&nbsp; God was the higher truth, and symbolism in art was considered
more imortant than its corresponding to what <EM>we</EM> conceive
of as reality.“&nbsp;(I believe Foucault also said something along
these lines, although I don’t remember reading it, so I really shouldn’t
have cited it.&nbsp; Oh well, too late,&nbsp; Maybe I should delete
these non-sequitors rather than putting them in parentheses?&nbsp;
I’m probably not depicting a very positive portrayal of my intellectual
life by adhering too closely to my actual thought processes.)&nbsp;
At any rate, I beleive we do have an inordinate esteem for the specular.&nbsp;
I don’t mean to seem like too much of an aetymologist, but I believe that
more of the Greek mind set pervades our present ideology than we give credit
to, besides a few helenophiles for whom I have an abiding mistrust.&nbsp;
At any rate, the Greek word <EM>oida </EM>“I know“ is the perfect
(in a present sense) of <EM>eidw </EM>I see.&nbsp; (Oh no!&nbsp;
I have gone through an entire box of recycled „facial tissues“–probably
largely to blame for the pitiful state of my nostrils, how dearly I sacrifice
for the sake of my good conscience.&nbsp; Now my only recourse is dorm
toilet paper, the only tier lower than which in the abrasiveness scale
is straight out bark.)&nbsp; We still have very much the „seeing is
believing“ mentality, restored during the age of reason.&nbsp; My music
teacher, to show us how culturally deprived we Americans are, played my
class a recording of two Pygmy (Is that term still used?&nbsp; It’s
what he called them, and I know no better) girls singing.&nbsp; He
talked about how the forest is so dense in equatorial Africa that the men
sing to each other while hunting in order to gauge their proximity to one
another.&nbsp; He said that the anthropologists who made this recording
took the leader of the tribe out of the forest in a jeep, and he wanted
to know how they were shrinking things.&nbsp; Because the forest is
too dense for distance vision, he apparently didn’t know about perspective
either, like our midieval artists.&nbsp; This is hear-say (which I
frequently visually confuse with heresy), so don’t take my word on it.&nbsp;
All the same, I’ll use it to demonstrate my point that our reliance on
the visual is culturally determined.&nbsp; I’m not sure exactly how
this could be used in a critical analysis of Kurosawa’s ghosts and shadows,
but examination of his film techniques lends itself to my own little tangent.&nbsp;
I’ve realized this is quite pointless, you shouldn’t have had to read this.&nbsp;
I’m going to cut and paste that little warning at the beginning of the
e-mail so that you can be forewarned (isn’t that a nice little post-modern,
non-linear trick?)

According to my friend Chris: Katy (social), Lalage (literary), and
tapehead (don’t ask) make up the
trinity Maria
–he went to Catholic school, so he’s invested in this
sort of analysis.

Tapehead


Message-ID: <200205170451.06EDSGBa13505@rly-xa05.mx.aol.com>

Hello Gang!

Isn’t this ironic?  Giants
and Toys
is coming to life!  3 giant companies

and their toys!  Microsoft and its X-Box, Sony and its PS2, and
Nintendo

with its Gamecube.  What is interesting when you compare it to
Giants and

Toys, they are entering a war where one will try to end up on top,
no matter

the cost.  The war that is going on is right now is a price war. 
X-Box has

dropped $100 bucks, PS2 is lowing their price, and Nintendo is thinking

about lowering their’s (their system was a hundred less than the other
2

systems to begin with, but their advantage is disapearing because the
others

are lowing their prices).  The example of the „must win, no matter
the cost“

mentality is the X-Box.  With the original price (I think somewhere
around

$300 or more) is losing a lot of money per unit sold, but, yet they
are

still lowering the price another $100 dollars.

I think some of the more important paralles are that it is Japan versus
the

US.  Sony and Nintendo are fighting Microsoft.  Which makes
the situation

more like WWII is that the United States could totally out produce
Japan

during the war, and Microsoft has billions of dollars in reserve to
just

dump into the market.  Sega has already bitten the dust, and pulled
out of

the market.  They are just making games, which is a ‚can’t beat
em, join em‘

attitude.  Will we see Sony and Nintendo combine forces to fight
Microsoft,

or will they fight each other?  Another possibilty is that Japan’s
gaming

companies will be forced to just write software for the X-Box, being

absorbed and occupied by Microsoft, just like the US did after WWII
ended.

Only time will tell to see which
of the Giants, and their Toys
, will sell to

the market.

-Jon Buzan


Date: Fri, 17 May 2002 15:47:03 +0000

From: Katy Goodman

If you’re ever curious about what sort of thing runs through my head
as I’m trying, and failing, to fall asleep at three a.m., here is your
chance for edification.&nbsp; I realized I had spelled <EM>sequitur
</EM>sequitor in my last e-mail and thought, <EM>Oh no,&nbsp;
Sequitur is the third person singular of sequor, sequi,
secutus and I’ve spelled it as if it were a third declension mas/fem adjective!&nbsp;
How is anyone going to take me seriously?

There, hopefully I haven’t embarrassed myself again.


Yeah, I’ve been sick, too.&nbsp; I think I’m going
to blame my disasterous undersea volcano communiqués&nbsp;on
me being too sick to think clearly.&nbsp; </DIV>

<DIV>&nbsp;</DIV>

<DIV>In any case, I was wondering if the other people on the Kairo
panel could send me their e-mail addresses.&nbsp; Also, do any of you
know what you’re going to focus on for the panel?