Category Archives: Daily record

Today I have to force myself to think out how to express the ‘Active and Positive relationship’, only because the microphone will be returned tomorrow. Sometime, working under pressure can really help thinking, creative thinking. So I just remember the table example that Adrian said in class, he took that example in couples times.

He said that “Just look at this table in front of us, it made up of wood. We normally will say that we chose this wood to be made of this table, why don’t we say that this wood chose to be made of the table in this room, in front of us.” (Not totally the original one) Whatever, but this example reminds me a point that in normal thinking and recolonization, people is the active object, choosing wood to make table. When we change our mind, in ontology or onto-cartography, wood could be the active objects, because we all are equal.

There is a truth that whether which object is the active one, the Active and Positive relationship won’t change, which means the sounds of relationship won’t change. For example, still the table example. Ignore which is the active or positive side, we have already known that there is a relationship between the people and wood, certainly the table is the agency. Because of the existing of this relationship, there is process of making table, such as delivering wood. And all the sounds from this process, namely from this relationship won’t change. The sounds still the sounds.

So follow this direction, I decided to record the original and common sounds in the kitchen.

For example, ‘Carrot cuts the knife’. Yap in common understanding, carrot can’t cut the knife, knife is the active one and carrot must be positive. However, in the understanding of ontology, carrot can cut the knife, and the sounds is same to the sounds that knife cuts carrot. That’s it.

When we were confusing about the project, Nina recommend that we can focus on Food, How food goes to people’s mouth. So it’s about the process. This process won’t be bad, it’s good. But remember that we need to focus more, focus on a thing. Moreover, if we go further the process of producing food, that will be a big program. We need to get access to some factory, or maybe farm?

So talking about the how food get to people’s mouth, we thought the related ‘eating’. ‘Eating’ is a good direction we can dig into.

‘Eating’ officially is a process, as we know. However, it is not only a process but a relationship. I mean, ‘eating’ is presenting a relation between two objects, one is by eating, the other one is do eating. This is a ‘Active and Positive relationship’. Following this ‘Active and Positive relationship’ direction, we can change our usual and common mind that why says people eating apple, not apple eats us? Why we are the active one? If we cut a piece of apple, putting it in the air, there will be oxidation reaction on that piece of apple. Is apple the active one, making the oxidation reaction? Or Air is the active one, making oxidation reaction?

Well, they’s for this idea. But the problem is, how to express this ideology in our video and soundscape? Still discussing.

The next due day is next Tuesday, it is on the way, so quick.

I have seen the video they made lots of times, and listened to the soundscape. You know that we need to make a 1 min video response to the new soundscape, plus a new soundscape. So totally at the end it is a 3 mins file. Unfortunately, they didn’t record the list in their soundscape, although I can roughly imagine that what stuffs make those sounds, I want to get a 100% answer.

The original theme, or I mean the location, is kitchen. Yeah, how lucky(really?), same to our first soundscape we made. The video is about someone eating in a place, like restaurant. Not only eating, but drinking. They spent lots of time on (food) in the plate, and some related stuffs that people carry with, such as water glass cup, tissue, coffee. I am so sorry that I can’t completed understand the meaning, and the thing that they pick out of the kitchen.

Remember what Adrian said, we should focus more, narrow more, on the thing. ‘Treat the thing as a thing.’ So how can I understand the soundscape well, pick out a thing from their soundscape.

Just roughly finished the reading, the only feeling and feedback I have is: Interesting, but can’t totally understand well.

Until now, what I get from the article:

Author give us a new view to observe the physical relationship that actually have been proved by scientists. Like the sun, sea, whether…

However, I do think I need to reread the article again.

In this very interesting article, I have to say that It took me hard to understand, to a large extent, what the author wants to present.

Author, at the beginning, criticizes the current materialism. As he says that the materialism now is narrow, and only concerning about the physical stuff and discursive. His key idea is that matter, here he mentions, he made up of ‘stuff’ and ‘things’. Stuff means physical stuff that is materialist as people recognized. About the ‘things’, as the author says, is something invisible, recognized by people’s brain. Yep, the relations between machines.

During the time I am writing the essay, again and again to read back in order to make sure I didn’t stray from the point. “without explication” and “greater attentiveness” are key words in the essay, explaining how the soundscape draw great attention on the items or locale.

I always keep myself to talk around the quote with the soundscape. Now I want to say out something I figure out during the writing process, but I don’t know whether they are right.

A list of objects without explication, just like a list of orders without explanation . Those independent words in a list, or the voice, attracting people with no reasons. A list of objects without explication is very simple and pure, nobody forcefully add their mind on those objects. Literature that Ian Bogost says in his book, to some extant, is full of human subjectivity and individual ideology. Back to the list, just like back to the origin. Back to the items or other objects from explications (other people’s ideology).

When we are reading a story or narrative, our mind will follow the story line, even the ideology and Weltanschauung created by author, namely, our mind are controlled by author. We won’t focus on items that included in the story or narrative, story line is more attractive. However, a list of objects without explication has a power that draw greater attentiveness on objects. Actually, I want to say that the power of a list of objects without explication is currently correspond to a ability of human. The ability is the reaction of the world. What is that? This question I think could be a typical reaction of human to this world.

The chapter 2 is talking more about ontology, the back of the chapter is more difficult to understand for me, compared to the front part.

Those poetry have a unbelievable magic, but seriously the way or style of poetry is what the teachers touch me can’t use, it is too simple and  useless. The ‘waters of March’ is so cool, fully reflect what Ian Bogost says in the book that ‘instead of worshipping simplicity, OOO embraces messiness. ‘

In the back of the chapter, Ian Bogost mention visual ontographs, I can’t understand the example he took. ‘François Blanciak’s speculative, paradigmatic architectural theory Siteless’, this example makes me confused. What exactly Ian Bogost want to explain clearly with this example?

When I have spare time, I’d like to practice my writing on copybook (for calligraphy). The content of my copybook is Tao Te Ching that is the original book of Taoism, and published in the late 4th century BC. Laozi who is the ideologist of Taoism, in other words, he insisted Naive Dialectic.

The translation in Chapter 5:

Heaven and Earth are impartial;
they treat all of creation as straw dogs.
The Master doesn’t take sides;
she treats everyone like a straw dog.

The space between Heaven and Earth is like a bellows;
it is empty, yet has not lost its power.
The more it is used, the more it produces;
the more you talk of it, the less you comprehend.

It is better not to speak of things you do not understand.

The ancients used to treat the sky as the master of the world, and often endowed with personality and religious meaning. However, Laozi (the ideologist) didn’t believe that, in his opinion, the sky has its own objective mode of operation, there is no mercy. So sage (or politician) doesn’t need to be mercy to public, imitate the nature to do noting to administer a country, society and community.

PS: Seriously, I just agree that the world doesn’t have mercy, but I am not totally agree that politician do noting to the society, let it go as what the society wish. If issues happen, they have to in charge. Regarding to how to administer a community, society or a country, I am more interested in Mohism, its Mohist logic is the first logic system in ancient China, one of the three classical logic systems in the world.