Sunday, November 01, 2009

Living in New York City via Nanotechnology and Bisexuality

Foto by tgw, "On the Roof Behind My Roof," New York City, 2009

Help. It is the Lord's Day after the Devil's Eve hath passed and I am bored. Trying to comprehend nanotechnology. Trying to understand those who live in the miniature world, the world of microchips, the microworld of the micropeople, people who think in smallness and compression. People who crunch their voluminous knowledge down into pinhead tomes--yes, computer geeks, number crunchers, stuffing full volumes into microlibraries. Everything visual or audio is compressed down into nanospheres, specks tinier than flyspecks; specks within specks; worlds within worlds. Just think of this flowing field of mathematically configured systems interacting and undressing each other, searching each others's bodies, searching for solutions, for cons, for disruptions, for valleys of peace and tranquility, for God, for gods. And there are nanogods. Yes, I am amazed by human science. And that's what it is, human science extending itself outwardly deeply into space (just this week some observatory photographed the most distant source of light they've yet found in the universe) and extending itself deeply into the inward world, the microworld, the nanoworld--and what is beyond the nanosecond?

Let us Wikipedia "nanotech":
Nanotechnology, shortened to "nanotech", is the study of the control of matter on an atomic and molecular scale. Generally nanotechnology deals with structures of the size 100 nanometers or smaller in at least one dimension, and involves developing materials or devices within that size. Nanotechnology is very diverse, ranging from extensions of conventional device physics to completely new approaches based upon molecular self-assembly, from developing new materials with dimensions on the nanoscale to investigating whether we can directly control matter on the atomic scale.
We humans are never satisfied with what knowledge we have. We are never satisfied with who we are. All our science is trying to prove to us who we are, where we are, and whether we're divine or not. Is nanotechnology a progressive advancement of already mature science or is it a trial-and-error juvenile science?--physicists being bored--reversing the telescopes of their astronomer brothers and sisters (a woman once tried to count the stars) to peer into the micro world--reversed telescopes becoming microscopes. Scopes. We see everything through scopes.

Didn't Leibniz cover this with his monadic theories?:

Leibniz defines a monad as a simple substance which cannot be divided into parts. A compound substance may be formed by an aggregation of monads. Thus, a compound substance may be divided into simple parts.

According to Leibniz, monads differ in quality, and no two monads are exactly alike. Each monad has its own individual identity. Each monad has its own internal principle of being. A monad may undergo change, but this change is internally determined. Changes in the properties of any monad are not externally determined by other monads.

Each monad has a plurality of properties and relations, which constitutes its perception. Each monad has its own perceptions which differ from the perceptions of other monads. Perceptual changes are constituted by the internal actions of monads. Leibniz describes three levels of monads, which may be differentiated by their modes of perception A simple or bare monad has unconscious perception, but does not have memory

Leibniz explains that reason is governed by two main principles: the principle of contradiction, and the principle of sufficient reason. According to the principle of contradiction, a proposition must be either true or false. If two propositions are contradictory to each other, then one of the propositions must be true, and the other must be false. According to the principle of sufficient reason, nothing happens without a reason. No proposition can be true without a sufficient reason for its being true and not false.

Leibniz declares that there are two kinds of truth: truths of reason, and truths of fact. Truths of reason are a priori, while truths of fact are a posteriori. Truths of reason are necessary, permanent truths. Truths of fact are contingent, empirical truths. Both kinds of truth must have a sufficient reason. Truths of reason have their sufficient reason in being opposed to the contradictoriness and logical inconsistency of propositions which deny them. Truths of fact have their sufficient reason in being more perfect than propositions which deny them.


I love these dudes of complication. Humans love complication. I've seen imbeciles in insane asylums trying to work crossword puzzles. Humans love puzzles. Humans love to put mice and rats through mazes trying to find out how a human would react in a complicated maze-like society. Human reasoning is simply an evolutionarily developed attribute which enables us to be constantly proving to ourselves we are beyond the jungle so far we no longer fear the Kings of the Jungle--we have almost decimated them. Humans hate wild animals, as we call them. We hate them because in our animal past they were our enemies, our predators. The greatest show of power there once was was a male human animal going out and barehanded killing a lion! Samson did it in the Judaic fable. I think Samson had the help of an ass's jawbone. Then the lionkiller would cut open the freshly killed lion's chest cavity, pull its still-beating heart out by the roots, and then proceed to eat it raw! WOW! That's a monarch, baby. The King of the Beast defeated and its heart eaten by the King of Civilization, a human invention, a place where humans alone are the kings.

It is a male world, ladies and gentlemen. The Kings of this earth are males. Yes, females can rule, but they'd better be pretty damn male-like in their attitudes. These nanotech ideas, I'll bet you, are basically male ideas. Human beings being defined by human males.

One thing I get from reading women writers (especially a woman like H.D. (Hilda Doolittle)) is that women are in a whole other world when it comes to everything--they are males turned outside in. Women live in the shadows of the men most of their lives. And they hate it. H.D. wrote tons of feminist poetry trying to relate herself to the fact she always fell for men who eventually treated her like shit, the puzzle for H.D. being, the reason she sought to be psychoanalyzed by Herr Doktor Freud in Vienna, using Freud's theory of transference of a girl's sexuality from the mother to the father. Freud believed it was natural for boys to transfer the love for their fathers to their mothers and vice-versa. H.D. is not really in accordance on all things with Freud, who she calls "the Professor" in her strong woman way of comparing him to her father, Charles Doolittle, who was a professor of Astronomy first at Lehigh and then at Penn, transferring her love for her father onto Professor Freud, who really wasn't a professor at all, don't you see.

Women think so differently than men (as though you didn't know that). Yes they do. They are complicated to men because men don't really know themselves, which is why they are constantly trying to prove to other men how STRONG and COURAGEOUS they are and to women how immediately sexual and ready for some lovin' they are. Women are courageous in totally different ways. H.D. discovered through Freud how much she didn't know about her mother and through her feelings for her mother she found another source of her sexuality, and H.D. was a wonderfully sexually free woman, fucking freely women or men, a woman when she needed woman love and a man when she needed that animal love--and this woman-love vs. man-love became the big dilemma in her life (in D.H. Lawrence's life, too, except just the opposite)--World War I disrupting her life and her loves--her brother was killed in that war and her father died shortly afterwards his life sucked away by his grieving the loss of his son in spite of having a very smart and fabulous daughter.

Seeing even sex through H.D.'s eyes has been so revealing to me--the sensitivities of women--and how men don't understand them or if they do, like Ezra Pound understood H.D. (she had studied Greek literature in college and lived within a Greek feminist world of her own imagination), they try and dominate them and direct them, taking credits for things women later deny, like Ezra's giving H.D. her initialed name when he submitted her poems to Harriet Monroe at Poetry magazine in Chicago (Ezra was Poetry's foreign editor) and signed them H.D. imagiste.

H.D. after WWI became nightmarishly afraid of war and the male brutalities surrounding war. She went to Freud for psychoanalysis due to her fear of Hitler and another approaching war--WWII. H.D. was in London during the German day and night bombing raids, the Blitz--Freud was there, too--and War H.D. related to males. Her role was as a calming mother-type figure for the warring males, giving them sex if that's what they needed or giving them mother love if they needed that. Ironically, H.D. came close to death when giving birth to her daughter Frances near the end of WWI. At the time, H.D. was married to D.H. Lawrence's friend Richard Aldington, so she named the baby Frances Aldington, though the baby was the result of H.D.'s torrid affair in the woods with the composer Cecil Gray, another of D.H.'s friends (one of H.D.'s pseudonyms, and she had many, was Edith Gray).

The intricacies of women. I love women. I am a ladies man. I excuse some of my romanticism by saying I was raised by three tough Pioneer White women and an overwhelmed ladies-man father who went around all his life saying all he wanted if life was "peace, quiet, and loving words." Married to my mother and with her mother living with us and my mother's sister always close at hand especially when the three-way mother-daughter combat began meant my father would never realize his peace-quiet-and-loving-words utopia. The word for my father in those days was "henpecked" (and I have a great male suspicion that that henpecking wife eventually got both of them killed).

Here's the scoop on H.D.'s main Lesbian lover, the novelist and rich babe who called herself Bryher (Annie Winifred Ellerman her real name--her father, John Ellerman, at one time was the richest man in all of England):

Bryher knew from an early age that she was lesbian.[3] In 1918 she met and became involved in a lesbian relationship with poet Hilda Doolittle (better known by her initials, H.D.). The relationship was an open one, with both taking other partners. In 1921 she entered into a marriage of convenience with the American author Robert McAlmon, whom she divorced in 1927. [1]

That same year she married Kenneth Macpherson, a writer who shared her interest in film and who was at the same time H.D.'s lover. In Burier, Switzerland, overlooking Lake Geneva, the couple built a Bauhaus-style style structure that doubled as a home and film studio, which they named Kenwin. They formally adopted H.D.'s young daughter, Perdita. In 1928, H.D. became pregnant with Macpherson's child, but chose to abort the pregnancy.

Bryher divorced MacPherson in 1947. She and Doolittle no longer lived together after 1946, but continued their relationship until Doolittle's death in 1961.

I've calmed down quite a bit since the day began. The 3rd game of the World Series is about to begin. Maybe that will put my mind back into real time. Games seem to be the only real-time things going on these days. How would nanotechnology change baseball?

Trick or treat?


for The Daily Growler

No comments: