What do we do with the translator’s introduction and glossary? An admission (or confession) of indeterminacy, the translator, by acknowledging the conceptually ‘foreign’ terms as pertains to his translation, makes an attempt to prime the reader for the encounter with a text that cannot possibly be grasped as anything but an experience.  Early on, it is advised to approach the text with an eye on the “record”  (as an analogy of reading style). Much like a record, the work allows any entry point, so long as the “track” begins. It provides entry at any point in the record, allowing for playing on repeat and random, without any determinate beginning.

Let’s extend a contrast/analogy (book/record) to the composing [anti]method of the book. Chapters are even organized as tracks (you may notice that the word ‘chapter’ is excluded from the entirety of the published work, #.s substituting the traditional organizing patterns [on a sidenote: the first ‘chapter’ 1. is an introduction, something that traditionally is excluded from the corpus count of the body]. The ‘track’ descriptions themselves (in the opening index) are organized more like liner notes than systematic points of organization (each – between conceptual address excludes referent page numbers).  Each chapter corresponds to a historical ‘date’ as a framing reference point, organized in no particular order (again, an indication that there is no necessary linear ordering to the book) followed by a topic or question. The framing of each ‘chapter’ (with date: topic, excepting  1. Introduction  and 15. conclusions), both of which fall bizarrely frame/contextualize the experience of mapping the work, establishes enigmatic points of reference which convey an affective sense of uncontrolled time travel (entry at any point, always in the middle of a time stream [more appropriately like a record]) . In this sense, each chapter becomes deterritorialized in its naming (removes the constant push of chapter::book), only to be reterritorialized immediately as the reader adapts to the new landscape in front of them. In a sense, each chapter renames the progress of the book, destabilizing the reader into a new environment, thereby forcing a reassessment of the ‘terrain’ as not a clear journey, but a persistent wandering through concepts, adapting to each shift in time as new conditions of reality emerge. The changes in authorial tone and approach within each chapter reassure us of this difference, thereby allowing us to displace ourselves into the whole. I should like to emphasize the disruptive nature of this affective shift; the change in voice reminds us that each ‘track’ is not like the other.

The work’s introductory ‘track,’ 1., establishes a fairly clear approach to the concept of rhizome; the introduction reminds us the the composition of the text stems from “present” authors (“The two of us wrote Anti-Oedipus together” [3]) targeting the “rhizome” and its principal characteristics clearly. The second chapter shifts this apparently clear targeting to something more peripheral (a criticism of Freud and psychoanalysis as neglectful of multiplicity). Deleuze and Guattari use poetics to shift from authorial presence as external thinkers/philosophers (‘we are presenting an idea’ in 1.) to semi-omniscient narrators (‘We are inserting you into a story’ in 2.). ‘Track’ 2. begins in a narrative form (3^rd person omniscient voice) to enter into the chapter’s context (what the Wolf-Man knows of Freud, his sessions, and himself in order to characterize the title of “Wolf-Man” as an irresponsible placement of proper name for the collective feeling of becoming/transforming) only to navigate a history of discourse and metaphor that reveals the true topic: social machinery. The narrative returns to the Wolf-Man’s mind in the end, effectively reminding the reader of the tone of the ‘track’. The initial change in voice conveys a sense of change, although we know the author’s over all style (consistency) remains.

The shift from clear authorial tone is further recognized through 3., which dissociates the author-actual (Deleuze and Guattari) from the author-present (disembodied narrator) through the recounting of what “Professor Challenger,” the virtual embodiment of Deleuze, has said.  Professor Challenger (and the refraining indictment of proper nouns) marks a separation from the common signifiers of ‘reality’ in lieu of a new semiotic system that does not include the “I” as a cohesive social reference point. The dissociation effectively re-enacts the argument of the previous chapter, removing the individual statement into the realm of the social machine (Professor Challenger represents only one voice in an extensive network of discourse).The disruptive shift in voice is only confounded by the shifting and unstable dependence on analogy and metaphor as vehicle for concept.  The use of the Lobster, which introduced articulation as a principal of “stratum” only to shift to metaphysical analogy (substance and form), explained through a physical and then chemical analogy, that keeps shifting (and, and, and [n-1]). Each analogy serves a purpose of clarification, but does not hold to its form, rather, it interrupts and inserts, allowing each approach to bleed through to others. Without consistent analogy, and thus the intensive features of concepts become difficult to map. The effect is very disorienting as what was initially a rather clear concept (rhizome as infinite work, perpetually in the middle of things, and wolves taken as Wolf-Man through reduction) and confounds it by adding each new layer of analogy.  Each introduction of conceptual schema (organizing system for mnemonic learning [ie an internal system of corresponding terms within metaphor] in order to coherently process the input of concepts) deviates from its promised flow, resulting in sidetracks and paralogical diversions that become mixed. The book is organized in such a way that to approach it as a singular, methodological approach to a question solely results in “getting lost” within the narrative. You can trust no framework; there is no logically apparent progression in conceptual formation. It is a manipulative maze of ideas whose methodology can only be understood from completion of the ‘record,’ yet never fully accessed or completed.

Deleuze and Guattari relinquish the neurosis of philosophic discourse (compulsive repetition of signs and behaviors)in exchange for psychosis (asemiotic disassociation from ‘rules’)  . As disembodied authors, they presume a strange position with relation to the reader, not locatable in any clear propositional or behavioral identity that establishes a linear argument. The neurotic tendencies of writing (follow form compulsively or damages will occur) are substituted by a psychotic break, where no semblance of external unity is required to recognize the unity of the text. That is to say, while each ‘track’ (chapter) is collected into the ‘record’ (book), it is clear that it is not the same track playing; D&G don’t do covers. The reader can only recognize the work as consistent through wandering; the reader must chart and revisit each scene/time/track/chapter under their own tastes until the style of the artist is revealed and a sense of cohesion becomes possible.

A Thousand Plateaus, therefore, will not have been a text-book. It is of many tracks, but no two are the same. The components and features of each perpetually violate and re-present (D&G’s use of refrain as analogy to repetition) themes and concepts, it is never a simple act of tracing or reproduction; the work is not dogmatic enough for such clarity of citation. Rather, it is a work for revisiting; it is a landscape for rhizomatic thought.

Preventive approaches in medicine have long been dismally regarded as underutilized (1).  Perhaps this under utilization can be blamed for the 40 percent of the United States annual deaths that are attributed to preventable causes such as tobacco smoking, poor eating habits, physical inactivity, and the misuse of alcohol (2).  The causes of almost half of our nation’s yearly deaths are ones that have the ability to be easily obviated in the future with the implication of programs promoting healthy lifestyles.

Some individuals argue that preventive measures are not currently beneficial to or constructive in lowering the annual death count of our nation.  Perhaps the possible ineffectiveness of these measures is due to the lack of effort and money put in to the promotion of preventive acts.  Emphasis on prevention has always been the poor affiliation in federal health spending.  The National Institute of Health’s efforts towards diagnosis and treatment are functioning with the assistance of nearly 30 billion dollars per year.  Contrarily, the Center for Disease Control and Prevention is budgeted for a comparatively speaking measly 5.7 billion dollars annually (1).  Therefore, as stated before, the resistance of some individuals to such preventive measures may feasibly be accredited to the methods’ low apparent effectiveness which could subsequently be attributed to its lack of adequate funding.

Preventive measures can be extremely beneficial to the health of a country’s populace if correctly used and acted upon.  It is said that when evaluating overall costs and benefits, opportunities for favorable investment in health care arrangements are roughly equivalent for prevention and treatment.  Although, when preventive measures are directed towards groups of high health risks, health counseling and screening for disease can be extremely cost effective.  For example, alcohol consumption is said to be the highest in White males.  With that said, preventive measures such as counseling directed towards those individuals would be greatly beneficial to reducing the number of cases of liver disease.  On the other hand, counseling directed towards Hispanics (who have a high percentage of individuals that abstain from drinking) would not be as monetarily constructive (3).   Therefore, broad generalizations that place one approach (either preventive or reactive) as being more conducive than the other are most likely misleading.  Each alternative for promoting health is effective in its own specific area.

We need to start allocating our financial resources more effectively.  We need to develop a more efficient and productive health care system that would direct preventive efforts towards groups of high risk.  Additionally, we need to act with the future in mind.  It is necessary to begin promoting the participation in preventive lifestyles for these groups when the individuals are still young (such as setting up programs in schools, summer camps, etc.) in order to ensure that they live healthy lives from beginning to end.

1. http://www.psychologicalscience.org/observer/getArticle.cfm?id=2323
2. http://content.nejm.org/cgi/content/full/358/7/661
3. http://pubs.niaaa.nih.gov/publications/arh27-1/87-94.htm

In this scene, Decker (a sort of specialized detective played by Harrison Ford) is examining a “photo” of a scene associated with a crime. He uses a sort of glorified microfiche reader to enter into a digitized version of the image.

What draws my attention to this technological scene is the impossible ability of the computer hardware to take a two dimensional image and render a three dimensional space from it, allowing Decker to see behind the mirror for his revelation. This impossible promise of human/computer interface reflects a certain attitude of the 1980s, based on achieving the impossible, transcending the limits of space through high-tech resources.

Also, notice the sound effect for every “Enhance”

SG-1 is a formula based adventure show featuring a group of humans exploring the galaxy and confronting mysteries, obstacles, and enemies in the name of preserving and protecting earth. The  episode in question, Revision (an interesting title relevant to Remediation), describes a civilization enclosed in a protective dome (the “real” environment on their planet is poisonous due to industrial development) that uses a direct neural interface to extract any piece of knowledge that their collective database holds. The ultimate in transparency, a computer network controlled and accessed by thought seems to be an ideal technology fulfilling the society’s manifesto of simplifying life in correction of their mistakes.

Being a formula based show, SG-1 won’t rest to let such an utopic vision of society to hold; naturally, something goes wrong. As it turns out, the neural interface (The Link) does not only offer an open stream to communal knowledge, it also allows a way into the brain – the technology  has equal opportunity to effect its user.  It is capable of erasing memory, re-writing the past and even controlling the movements of the users who are linked in.  Gradually, The Link even rewrites the basis of thought and personality; literally mind control. Luckily for our dome residents, the SG-1 team figures out the problem and solves it… with paper! “God bless the Lawyers” to quote Daniel Jackson. The hardcopy records reveal a conspiracy that hides the truth of the dome- the computer that runs the dome is rewriting history and deleting unwanted elements in order to preserve the community: the sacrifice is necessary for the maintainable of the whole. Thus the truth revealed (in the apocalypse), balance can be restored. In the end, the old fashioned way – human intuition, creativity, and memory- saves the day, huzzah!

Something interesting happens when we translate The Link – an open source knowledge database – into something we know, like Wikipedia. Both provide a claim of totality of knowledge (the circle of the archive completed) but are subject to a flaw that is inherent in their methods: the collection of knowledge is bidirectional and capable of manipulation. An overconfident investment in such technology can lead to information control, censorship, loss of “truth” in place of manufactured evidence leading to claims. A cautionary tale then! What does this sort of collective archive represent to us? A desire?

I’ll spare you the lacanian reading and musings on  U(dys)topia.  What I would posit that the show represents in their vision of a transparent, idealized archive is a desire better left unfulfilled. Pursued with blind devotion and conviction, the utopia undermines itself and falls from its own behaviors (misdirected into jouissance).

A reservation, a concern. This seems to fall in line with all too many sci-fi series… a voice that complicates our desire.

Things of note in this particular case, the girl is idolized for relating to technology as a male nerd might. An interesting implication of gender relation to technology (why shouldn’t a girl love computers).

What’s really of note here is that in order to run a floppy disk (a piece of evidence in an investigation), they had to go to access a museum exhibit and retrieve what was once a top of the line computer, an artifact  that is outdated by 20 years.  Even still, I love that they set up three screens to run the game… how gaudy.

That a piece of technology should become a relic for intellectuals indicts our cultures progressive train of thought, buy the new, discard the old. What happens when some valuable piece of information should be needed and there is no means of retrieval? Bones‘ brief attempt to bring this to the forefront seems to be a positive reflection of our culture’s concerns about these forms of outdated tech (especially considering the shows demographic, who remembers first gen computer technology and is faced with a newer, flashier tech every year).

I also think the scene is sweet because of the tender moment that is shared over this temporary moment of nostalgic reflection. It suggests that somewhere in every geeks heart is a place for preservation of the lost.

Aw.

There are a few things to note in particular here. The commercial is hinged on the use of the 1958 song Lollipop, by the Chordettes. The song’s playful nature, basis around analogizing a person as candy, and it’s nostalgic appeal to values that predominated during the era of the nuclear family draws on pathos to open the audience to the friendliness of the product. The rhetorical appeal effectively places the associations of “computer” with “American Values,” instilling the discourse of patriotism into the object.
The mechanization of the factory also deserves note in this case. The workers, dressed in Blue overalls and hardhats, serve as administrators to a cartoonish self-automated factory; while the workers sing and check their notebooks, a Taffy like product is filtered to the conveyor (an established trope of factory discourse) stomped by an elephant foot and cut by claymation automated robots. The separation of worker from product generation is a bit unnerving, but obviously provides an unintended subtext. Still the setting establishes a certain ethos of capitalist rhetoric and is a familiar fantasy in the pop-cycles consideration of mechanized production.
The computer produced is put in a candy wrapper and then ready to ship out by the end of the commercial. This strikes me as particularly weird as in the equation of a consumable candy (a treat at that), Dell is implying a certain amount of product deficiency; by suggesting that a computer is to be consumed and discarded, the commercial is either indicating that the product is a terminal one, and will shortly need to be replaced, or that Americans are so progressive about their technology, that each new gadget is nothing but a “treat” to be used and then discarded. Either way, seems like an unsettling suggestion.
Good thing that cheery music and the cartoonish factory is there to make the viewer feel safe. Rhetoric wins again.

The show seems to address the danger of these old, outdated paranormal objects. The Warehouse is a museum/storage locker of lost historical items, designed to contain them and prevent their exposure to the contemporary world. Warehouse 13 seems to contrast “new, digital” technologies with older artifacts and apparatus so through the representations of the two types of technology, it seems to me that the rhetoric is posed in opposition which essentially creates an internal argument. It strikes me that this conflict that is internal to the show presents a sort of moral dilemna to the audience about technology. It almost seems to challenge the audience to choose between the nostalgic artifacts of the past and the new technologies of the near future.

For example: Artie, the Warehouse manager, uses a keyboard that features typewriter keys rather than modern, popular keyboards

While note exacty the same keyboard from Warehouse 13, it's the same concept and design. Why bother using such a specialized keyboard? It's no different than a modern one, but for some reason, SyFy chose to use this nostalgic return to throw back technology over contemporary tech. Weird.

Through this sort of narrative framing of technology, each episode can contain its own rhetorical perspective, providing the audience with more anecodotes within this argument that provide a sort of informed persuasive writing tactic posed through a tv show.

This seems to be augmented even further by Claudia, the youngest “whiz-kid” member of the show. Her character (a wise-talking hacker/genius) is contrasted by Artie’s character (traditionalist kurmudgeon, genius of the archives). Through the dramas that occur within the Warehouse itself (Artie and Claudia’s territory), the battle between the old in the new seems mirrored.

This blog will represent one model of performing rhetorical analysis in a digital writing platform. Its focus is on the popular representation of technology as it appears across various media platforms.

The Disaster Stenciled: Viral Model, Fluid and Flexible

The ease of reproduction and the adaptable nature of the stripped design allows room for extension and relocation. Capable of being a stencil for spray paint, a stamp of any size; it is a digitally flexible artifact.

And so the process finds itself at a (temporary) close.

Until next time, I leave you the logo of the White Water E. Coli Disaster, stamped.

The color draft is layered with motion as the monotones of black disorrient the site. While it may certainly be transplant friendly, it is not the culmination of the scene. Finding myself at this moment of indecision, I backtrack and hold to both. I’ll let the prosumers who receive the next torch carry the more effective forward.

Logo in Color: Water Slides In Motion