Interesting. Excited to see how you develop this.

What is interesting here is that book is just as interested (if not more so) in the question of what consciousness is good for.

Love this title. Also, I can't get over how creepy your image is. I just keep staring at it.

Nice link.

I like the productive tension between this sentence and the sentence ending the previous paragraph. Both of these paragraphs capture something about the human, but neither can fully account for the human.

BOOM!

In many ways, we are doing more than just searching. We are constantly answering this question by the way we live our lives. Each's person's life could be understand as an answer to this question.

Strong assertion here. I think you mean to say "definite explanation" here.

This is very well put here. Indeed, this is what I was looking for when I asked above about the overly negative examples and terms you were using. This idea of stretching boundaries is indeed risky, but it also seems to be part of the human experience generally.

I don't disagree, really, but I am wondering if "cherry-picking" always carries with it a negative connotation.

What makes them "self-serving"? Is what they are doing such a bad thing?

If they haven't already.

This is a cool connection. Here I will point out that "modification" in a posthuman context is not always about human choice. Indeed, the idea that humans are autonomous actors making choices is seriously challenged by posthumanism. Recall my example of intestinal microbes that can potentially influence mood. Now, imagine you make a decision under the influence of this mood: was that choice truly your own. Or did that choice emerge from the relationship between you and the inhabitants of your gut?

What makes them "cultists?"

Interesting. Although I imagine she could adjust people's attitudes without them being conscious of it. What do make of that?

This is a conundrum here, of course: the requirement of consciousness in order to think through and manipulate consciousness. And note that major manipulation of Siri's consciousness was perform by someone else, and done so violently.

Nice.

Great use of sources and hyperlinks here.

Great point here. There is also the question of "who gets to talk about consciousness"? Is a topic reserved for philosophers and neuroscientists?

I like your use of everyday language to explore consciousness. That is, is it possible to imagine or realize that we are always exploring consciousness.

Interesting distinction. Compelling question.

Some forms of contact appear to be more negotiable that others.

The question about being the first generation to masturbate left-handed is a fully posthuman question.

Again, I would caution against attribute this to Watts.

You went for it here, didn't you?

"Fertilize the screen" is a great line!

Well, the most we can say is that Siri sinks into this bad habit. But he is an unreliable narrator at best.

Such a great film in this regard. I hope we are able to screen it later this semester.

This idea of *mutually affecting" is going to be big theme this semester.

Yes. This is what I am looking for in these blog posts: the move beyond the obvious reading. Posthumanism suggests that we can't simply look to the isolated, discrete individual for explanations of action and motivation: we have to look to the larger context, a larger, more complex set of relationships.

Nice.

Some solid info here, I think. Good link.

Excellent way of putting this. The city exerts a kind of agency over and through Spider.

Yes. Something more than obligation is at work: something more affective and embodied.

There is certainly a tension here: he is aware that the city will do things to him. He is passionate and ambivalent, we might say?

Nice connection here. Maybe add a sentence or two to explain what you make of this video.

This a thorny question, is it not. If we make consciousness part of what makes us human, but there are many times, many moments when we are not, then are we not always human?

Once we open up the category of the "human" we find other things potential sneaking into it.

I like this line of thought. This book does a lot to upset the categories of human/nonhuman and animate/inanimate. You have done a good job of attending to that here.

Cool question.

Let's hope so :)

I like the focus on speed here. The speed of this world intensifies these aspects of posthumanism.

This is a compelling insight. As you nicely point out, posthumanism is interested in the ways we are mediate by technology. What we get in this issue is a sense of the pace at which this can happen. There is, then, an interesting pun here: Spider has become television in the sense of he is now news and because his thinking has been shaped by television: he know thinks like a television. There is compelling research that our abilities to follow a narrative are impacted by commercial breaks, for instance.

Good connection. It could be elaborate just a bit. Something like, "adapting to these technologies results in important changes or differences in Spider."

This title is blowing my mind!

How does this connect back to your question about Cunningham, or to your opening description of yourself as confused?

Compelling question. What do you think?

I like this relationship as well, but I'd like to see you, at this point, develop the discussion of Robert Cunningham.

Why not attempt an answer here?

I like the connection back your previous posts. In the future, you could easily add a link here.

Awesome!

Interesting, but consider that the opposite might be true: that is, if Siri had blindsight with respect to his relationship with Chelsea, then the relationship would be working without his conscious awareness of it. That is, Siri is incapable of being not conscious.

Great question. It seems that they obsess over in much the same way that often do: we make consciousness a supreme achievement and so a measuring stick we use to assess other life forms.

This is a key question here: so what?

Great use of embedded video here. I'm digging the research you are putting into these posts.

This is a nicely composed post. You pull from a specific element of the text to make a larger claim, and you link to a contemporary moment. It has the elements. That said, going forward (and this is the work of the semester), you'll want to sharpen your insights. In many ways, the larger connection you make here is too large, too general, as so too vague. That is, this moment is surely about humans being terrified of difference, but this moment is looking a particular kind of difference. The connection you make misses the particular difference of the transients. Sure they are different, but they are also uniquely different. Thus, we can read the comic as not just making a comment about the fear of difference generally, but of a fear of difference at level of bodies, for instance. This world is full of difference yet only the transients are being attacked here. Why the transients and not some other group?

Keep up the good work.

Nice turn of phrase here.

Nice use of linking. Just make sure you better control where and how the line shows-up.

This is a good move to make in these posts: how can we use the dynamics of what we are reading to make sense of the world around us.

Love this line and this connection.

Amazing.

Rhetors and rhetoricians.

An "available means of persuasion".

Very interesting point here. Blurry boundaries.

Strong Defense of Technology

The boundaries between real and not are being recomposed here.

Interesting language here, as the story itself seems to be suggesting that these tools are far from simply tools.

"Easier" is one way to put it. Why not "more appealing."

It what ways is this not surprising?

It spreads through the medium.

And did the real time nature of this following take part in the escalation?

In many ways, we don't yet have the ethical terminology to begin discussing such possibilities. That is why I find science fiction such as this compelling: it's a chance to work out approaches to these issues through literature.

Great connection!

This is the sort of question that posthumanism is interested in asking. How are ethical norms established.

What I find interesting about this fact, is that such procedures aren't science fiction, but happen today.

Glad to hear it.

This is a solid post on the whole, but it never connects to the issues of posthumanism. What is it about his world and our world and the Grinch's world that generates this cynicism. The posthuman is interested in cynicism not simply as a personal trait but as something that emerges from, for instance, environments.

This is a potentially interesting connection, but you don't fully develop it here.

This is a solid move here. You make connection between the reading and an external source and then you move to indicate why this connection is meaningful or otherwise important: that is, what can we learn or take away from this connection.

Interesting. Are you positing, then, that we defines a human is "randomized traits"?

I'm not sure that this is totally true.

I am finding this sentence hard to parse. What are you claiming here?

According to aliens who may or may not fully understand humans.

I'm really digging this opening paragraph. You're suggesting that we get from the novel is an understanding of ourselves as humans from aliens: how do they imagine what a human is? What do they see as dehumanizing?

This is a solid post on the whole, but it never connects to the issues of posthumanism. For instance, what is it about the highly mediated world that Spider lives in that might be driving him. Why might the city of Transmetropolitan be host to so many religions?

Furthermore, it doesn't really delve into specifics but rather provides a somewhat cursory summary of Spider's actions. Because it is cursory, you aren't able to deal with the contradictions of Spider's character. There are elements of the story that show Spider to be anything but compassionate and humane. Indeed, what might be taken away is that his pursuit of truth, which is his primary pursuit, works in opposition to compassion. Certainly, these two pursuits aren't mutually exclusive, but their relationship is very complex.

How many "criminals" does he go after? I see what you mean here, but it's not simply criminals that he targets.

Aaron,

You'll want to give your Tumblr page a title as well as a theme you think works for the critical perspective you will develop here.

What I like about this quote is that it suggests that the technologies themselves are the agents.

Excellent connection. This is what I mean about seeing ourselves as already posthuman. Our identity as human is constantly in flux and mediated by particular technologies.

Check this out.

I don't think this means that vampires don't have memories or that don't learn from them. It simply means they are always experiencing the past, which is actually an intensified version of the quote here about learning from the past.

As a kind of modfication is certainly one understanding of posthumanism. However, we can also understand posthumanism as a way of exploring what it means to be human. That is, posthumanism isn't simply about augmenting ourselves with particular technologies: posthumanism doesn't haven't in mind some specific way of being human. We are already posthuman: we daily struggle with what it means to be human, what counts as human, etc. Posthumanism, then, is a way of making this struggle visible. Science fiction is too.

Great point. Convenience can bring a lot of new experiences to the table.

This is a great, posthuman insight: that particular technologies don't simply reflect human values, but that access to those technologies can change human values and behavior. Technologies aren't simply value neutral: they suggest things. As Carlile points out, this would have been a great opening paragraph that then gets developed with examples from the comic.

This is certainly one understanding of posthumanism. However, we can also understand posthumanism as a way of exploring what it means to be human. That is, posthumanism isn't simply about augmenting ourselves with particular technologies: posthumanism doesn't haven't in mind some specific way of being human. To jump ahead to your final paragraph, then, there is nothing particular about Siri's world that makes it more posthuman than our own. We already live in a posthuman world where we daily struggle with what it means to be human, what counts as human, etc. Posthumanism, then, is a way of making this struggle visible. Science fiction is too.

Importantly, and as I point out about, posthumanism doesn't suggest certain configurations of the human. What posthumanism wants is to explore exactly what, in this instance, you mean by "simply not human?" What is a human to you? What counts as human? Why do you only count certain things as human? These are all important questions to ask: and these questions are what posrthumanism is?

We are ourselves, to a certain extent, created from chemicals. And, increasingly, in case such as IVF, cooked in labs.

These are great questions. It is these questions that you start with; it is these questions you should use the readings to answer.

What do you mean by "bigger meaning"? This is pretty general through here. For instance, I agree that people act like this in our world. Your post needs to do more than point this out: why do people live this way, for instance? And is there something in the texts we are reading that can help answer this question? What factors are at play in shaping particular behaviors?

I'm intrigued by this possible "religious" connection.

Nice point. Indeed, aspects of the novel seem to suggest that if we advance far enough we will move "beyond" consciousness. That is, someday we might know all the mysteries of the universe; we just won't know that we know it at that point.

Which is sort of doubly creepy: being able to accomplish things we cannot then explain.

Obviously, we will spend some time talking about what posthumanism is. I say this because I am not sure what is actually posthuman about the perspective you've developed here. The posthuman isn't simply anything that is about the human. That is rather than simply saying that religion is a part of humanity, you need to explore how religion shapes what we mean by "humanity."

I am not sure what the connection to posthumanism is here.

Very interesting and suggestive connection here.

Especially in dark, filthy and sinful worlds.

This is a very compelling point. Typically, we understand the human in the binary terms of male and female. What Caitlyn and other transgender individuals suggest is that this might be a limited way of understanding the human. A posthuman perspective, such as the one you develop here, pushes us to question such an understanding. In other words, how else can someone be human?

Hum. Given the argument you are making, is this actually the case. Indeed, the very notion "deep down" is what is being challenged here. This is, of course, a complex question, but my reading of the novel leads me to believe that such changes do indeed result in new people--not completely new, but significantly altered. As you go on to suggest, these changes are "drastic" and perhaps go to the core of our very being.

I see what you are getting at here, but textual evidence suggests that many individuals in this world have been significantly augmented. Think of his crewmates, for instance.

This is a fantastic connection, Hillary. In the future, I would strongly encourage you to lead with this kind of paragraph. That is, start with the insight and the connection to posthumanism and then build from there. That way, all of the connections you make will fall in line behind the claim you are making.

Starting with this insight will also allow you to develop it. My one critique here is that this great connection goes underdeveloped: it feels tacked on here at the end.

This is very much a kind of question posthumanism is interested in asking and exploring.

I see the point you are making here, but there is perhaps a more interesting lesson to pull from the book. Rather than a kind generic assessment of the place of technology in our lives, it might be more interesting to see how technologies (of all types) mediate our relationships. For instance, within this novel language is treated as a technology, as an adaptation.

This statement, then, depends on how you are defining technology.

Perhaps, but there are many instances of the opposite: drugs that stimulate familial affection.

Is this, strictly speaking, true? Recall, as well, that we are hearing Siri's version of these events and the world of them.

You're gonna need a name and theme pretty soon.

This is potentially good connection to make here, and a better understanding of posthumanism, which you will work on throughout the semester, will help you make it. One of the things posthumanism is interested in is how human agency is mediated by technologies. Think of all the elements that shaped the eventual impact of Spider's story. It wasn't simply the individual choices made by Spider, but the larger network of which he is but a part: other individuals, sets of particular technologies all played a part. To understand the "Media" then means to take into account all of its components.

This is a solidly composed post. You pull from a specific element of the text to make a larger claim, and you link to a contemporary moment. It has the elements.

That said, going forward (and this is the work of the semester), you'll want to sharpen your insights. In many ways, the larger connection you make here is too large, too general, as so too vague. That is, this volume of Transmetropolitan is obviously about news and media. So, the connections you are making are there. However, the connections you make miss the particularities of Spider's world.

Nice. I find the idea that the definition of the human is shaped relative to other, related species compelling.

Is this, strictly speaking, true? He seems to interact with a lot of technology. Indeed, he has hard line connection to the ship's AI.

Excellent point. The novel seems interested in exploring the dynamics of the relationship between humans and vampires? Is one species more "advanced" than the other? Does the distinction even matter?

Nice. It's easy, actually, to gloss over this fact, which proves to be pretty significant for the novel.

Nicely put.

Bingo.

Great point. Think about a matter compiler (or a 3D printer) impacts, for example, legal norms. Is there a three day waiting period if I can print the components for a gun and then assemble them at home?

This is a key insight. It isn't simply that technologies "change things": it's the technologies rewrite the very ground from which future things become possible. To borrow a key term from our next reading (Blindsight), the baseline keeps changing.

Nicely put.

Solid opening paragraph, and a strong connection to the concerns of the class.

What's important to consider is that whole novel is told from his perspective. In other words, we see this whole thing through his eyes.

Interesting question: does each "set" of eyes correspond to some inner life? Is each persona it's own entity?

Nicely put. He remains a mystery because it's hard to tell who is home (if anyone). The conclusion of the novel casts additional doubt in these directions.

Nice move: elaborating a definition through the text: how does it help us (re)think our most important concept.

Cliches often provide great openings for critical insights such as this.

Great opening question.

Great post. My only caveat is that you could have spent a little more time with Blindsight.

The one caveat I would add here is the because the "line between the human and the not is not black and white," as you say, then knowing what is "human-like" is increasingly tough as well.

Nicely said here.

And what's particularly interesting here is the compulsion to discover/invent boundaries between the human and the nonhuman.

Great connection here. This novel very much messes with is telling of the human story.

I love the phrasing here. And I like that you put the emphasis upon mirrors and acknowledge that these influences can be conscious and unconscious. Indeed, the larger, posthuman point, is that our so-called human conscious is always mediated by technologies.

Additionally, we can see how the use of something like photoshop and image filtering can produce effects as well.

I like this connection. It is not as if Spider intends to do such a thing. It is the technology with which he is doing it that makes such an effect possible.

This a solid opening move: seeing the future of a text as emergent from out present.

This kind of statement and question is where you should start your post. This post reads very much like a summary of a few aspects of the novel, but you don't really develop a specific claim or set of claims about the novel so far.

This is a fine opening statement, but given the brevity of this posts, you might want to avoid over generally introductions.

Excellent point.That said, going forward (and this is the work of the semester), you'll want to sharpen your insights. In many ways, the larger connection you make here an important one, but it leaves out the details of the story. That is, this moment is surely about humans being nervous of difference and feeling out of place, but this moment is looking a particular kind of difference. The connection you make misses the particular difference of the transients. Sure they are different, but they are also uniquely different. Thus, we can read the comic as not just making a comment about the fear of difference generally, but of a fear of difference at level of bodies, for instance. This world is full of difference yet only the transients are being attacked here. Why the transients and not some other group?

Very cool observation here. The idea of both sides existing at once is compelling, and a challenge.

It is very interesting that you should hit upon this "species problem," as such issues are ones posthumanism is drawn to.

I think I see what you are getting at here, but this sentence is still a bit too generic. What specifically have you added here in terms of your thinking? Great post!

Nice focus in on a particular word here.

The focus on voice is compelling here. It will be interesting to see if these theme continues to show up for you across the rest of the readings for the semester.

Again, great questions.

I really like this question. Rather than treating the "human" as some kind of abstract category, can we see it as particular kind of physical presence?

Two final comments:

1. There is no real connection to posthumanism other than the brief connection in the introduction. "Worst parts of society" is simply too general an insight.

2. You need to zero in on one connection and really develop that.

This is a potentially strong connection, but you don't develop it. You instead move onto another connection.

Here at the beginning give us a brief statement about what you think this perspective might suggest. In short, give away the ending of your post right here.

I appreciate the arc of this post: from annoyance to understanding. That said, there isn't much of a connection to the concerns of posthumanism or, just as an importantly, to the world of this comic book. Focusing on Spider's personality is great, but that personality needs to be connected/plugged into the larger world around him. For posthumanism, something like personality doesn't simply belong to an isolated individual; personality emerges across complex networks of brains, bodies, technologies and environments.

Posts need to do more than assess the personalities of characters; these posts need to explore, for instance, how personalities are complexly formed.

I like this point here: journalism is a kind of technology: it produces effects out in the world

Honest, but certainly violent. Why do you think he chooses a gun metaphor? What is the significance of this?

Best educational use of gif ever.

It would be interesting to know what a character like Spider would think of the concept of "citizen-journalist."

Actually, I think something more interesting can be asked here. Given the power of media (not just now but historically), is it possible to draw such a fine distinction as this. Spider is very much and rightly concerned with how he is seen (how he is mediated) because it has a direct impact on his ability to do his job.

Given that the news is always going to be mediated (it's right there in the phrase "new media"), these distinctions between seriously blurry.

I like the complexity here. Both of these statements can be true.

This is a really cool insight. (Also, the idea of ego is itself challenged here. Whatever "you" might want to do, media have minds of their own.)

While engaging in the study and critique of characters is a good place to start, it doesn't necessarily entail engagements with posthumanism. A posthuman look at Spider would attend to the larger network of forces around him. You do this a bit here and there with your attention to his drug use, but you avoid any specific engagement with the posthuman. This reads more like a general assessment.

This question gets close to something like a posthuman concern. In the future, work to develop precisely these kinds of insights.

These will be updated as needed throughout the semester.

This is a great song, the title of which captures one of the themes of this course: how technologies have their own logics and how those logics shape being human.

Thanks, Casey. You have changed my life.