Ken Rufo Responce

First off I would like to thank Ken Rufo for a great post. You had some really great examples that allowed me to understand Baudriarrd or at least get a grasp on what he was trying to say. The first thing that I would talk about is the Matrix. I have not yet finsihed the movie but from what I have seen I got the impression that what it is trying to say is that we cannot see the real. That everything around us is built. The matrix is a program that was designed for people to not be able to see what the world truly is. It is kind of like Alagory of the cave. In the story a philosper takes a man out of the darkness and tries to show him the realities of the world. It is kind of like a Marxist opinion of the world. What Ken was saying is that Marxists believe that everything is created by our surroundings but what Baudirarrd is saying is that even that isn't real. He is saying that nothing around us is real even the things that are supposivly socialy constructed are not real. Everything around us just continues to go from signifier to signifier. A quote that i like from Ken Rufo's discussion is "What he does say is that the mass production of objects and the general flow of wealth is making it possible, more and more, for people of lower classes to "simulate" living like people in the upper classes" (Rufo). It really helped me to understand what he was trying to say. What he is saying is that everything that we buy and consume is just making us believe that we are truly living. By buying things it is simulating life.

The Author

I have decided to talk about "The Death of the Author". I feel it is best to explain a liberal humanists view of an author first. A liberal humanist belives that the author should have nothing to do with the plot of the story and the morals of the story. The author and the background never relate to anthing that is being told in the work of literature. The author is not of meaning. In "Death of the Author" Barthe's takes a Post-Structuralist view of this liberal humanist concept. The term scripter is presented in this concept. The scripter replaces the author. According to Barthe the scripter "transcibes the culture". It also means that there is no origin other than language. Barthe belives that in this view we never know who is speaking and the the reader becomes the source. All identitiy of the autor is lost in this theory. The conecept of the "I" no longer exisits in this post-structuralist view. Like a post-strucrualist Barthe also believes that nothing is ever signified it is just a constant sinfier signifier and so on. I am still reall confused however on how the reader becomes the source. I know that I would explain it as the reader takes meaning from the story but i know that is wrong so therefore I am left confused by this theory.
http://centerofgravitas.blogspot.com/search?q=author
I found this article on the Blog of center of gravitas. This blog discussed that Jk Rowling came out with a statment after the Harry potter books were finished that the character of dumbeldore was gay. She seems to think that it was unessacary to put that statement out after the book was already written. The author of this blog feels that if she was going to make the character gay Rowling should have done it in the book itself. The blog author leaves me to belive that she has a liberal humanist view on the author. That the author should have nothing to do with the story and that the stroy should just tell itself without the help of the author. She also believes that if Dumbeldore was going to be a "queer hero" it would have been better to put it in the book becasue that is the only way he would have been a hero to the audience reading them. She believes there is no signifcance in know this fact after the book has been written. The author of this blog clearly has a liberal humanist view on the author or at least the HArry Potter books.

Dreams and Freud

Something that has always fasanated me is dreams. I often record and look up my own dreams. Freud says that the images tht we see in our head while we are dream are not exactly what these dreams mean. "Materical has to be turned into this form for dreams, since dreams don't say things they show things" (Barry 99). For example if you were to dream about shoes the shoe would have a deeper meaning you would not acctualy be dreaming about shoes. He also says that we always dream about our represed diesires which means that we dream about what we secretly and unconsiously want. I thought it would be cool to analyize one of my own dreams according to Freud. A few night ago I had a dream that my sister had a baby girl. Dreams according to Freud are broken down into a few parts. The first being association. Babies are oftern associated with the new, new advernture and new begingings. I had this dream the night before I started rehearsal for a new show witch would definatly make sence. To be honest I have no idea what it means that my sister was having a baby and not me if my life was taking a new turn. But perhaps that baby girl was me. If i was the one having the new beginging then what better way to start off new then to be born again. Analyzing my dreams is somthing that i do on a regualr basis because I find it so fasnating.
Something else that I found intersting in the Freud section was the freudian slip. I must say that I have oftern done this. According to Barry it is "whereby repressed materical in the unconsciousfinds an outlet through such everyday phenomena as slips of the tounge, slips of the pen, or unintended actions" (Barry 98). For example one time I was reading in class and the word was organism and I said the word orgasim. EMBARACING! But i can think of at least 4 people who have done the same exact thing.