Tag Archives: Media3

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.