Talk:Exe0.1 Molly Schwartz
Hi Molly,
I apologize, for not having commented on your wiki post before. I have read it and enjoyed it, but because it obviously is another format than what I am use to (which I LOVE), I am not sure how to comment on it. It definitely makes me reflect. I am horrified! Entertained, but horrified.
Your piece illustrates the difference between storing and recalling - making it obvious that this is two different things. I really like how you split it into twin sisters, it makes the differentiation very clear! In its most extreme, it represents computer memory, but attached to human affects and reactions (which is also what makes the story so scary). The nostalgia on the one hand and the claustrophobic feeling of being unable to erase and shut down on the other – both causing inability to act, to move forward. I will now forever consider my computer as being preemptively bored. I want to think more about it, maybe expand my comment here, or else I am just looking forward to discuss it soon.
/Lea
hi Molly,
Thanks for such an interesting and bold piece of writing, attempting to bring out the horrified things of memory, the difficulty of erasure and the right of erasure. Apparently you are putting human memory and computer memory on the same plate. I actually found myself more into deletion than saving or generating more data as I constantly like to clear my screenshots on desktop, pictures on phone etc. Of course I understand from Audrey's research, this acts of deletion is not a real erasure within the context of computer materiality. I am also asking myself why I need to save stuff, what might be the emotion tied with it. May be I am fear to forget? fear to redo things, fear to repeat operational steps? My question would be what are implications of ignoring and forgetting? and how can we do it? Is there a real forgetting? Are traces still left there even one forgets? what's the difference between forget and delete?
The recall and storage of human memory is interesting, it would be great to explain a bit more on how these process reconfigure memory formation?
--Winnie S (talk) 13:15, 24 November 2015 (UTC)
I am delighted by the format disobedience but I find it very difficult to comment on this text because of it. On the one hand I have no authority to comment on a piece of fiction (other than in an amateurish way which I am not sure is useful). On the other hand I am confused by the bibliography. Is it fiction or academic? As this is (at least to me and forgive my ignorance here) a mix of genres, I feel it is necessary to explain this to the reader. What is your intention by including bibliographic references? How would you like the reader to 'read' or understand your text. Please give us a context or explanation regarding the format.
Points I noted as I was reading:
Mention of hippocampus as site of memory -- this seems like an antiquated (or at the very least contestable) view of neuroscience that attributes certain functions to certain areas of the brain. It does not take into account notions of embodied cognition or neural reuse. According to the rich account of sensory perception in the text, I feel this is a disjunction.
Quantum theory link? (cannot recall and store memory at the same time) -- this is a very interesting idea! -It could be further elaborated and speculated upon.
I of course am very partial to the importance of forgetting. That said, as this point is brought in (quoted below) - it seems the very idea is negated by the possibility to recall memories when needed. How would a complete externalisation of memory solve the problems alluded to here? Why is the hardware and software not addressed? The hardware and software involved in the archiving of 'externalised tertiary retention' is crucial. The section I am referring to:
"Let’s teach molecules how to fold themselves, teach memories how to recreate themselves. Then humans will never have to remember anything again. Instead we can use all the data being collected everyday, everywhere, about our shared pasts, and call it into existence when we need it. "
In addition, how do you understand the politics of externalisation of memory? How would Stiegler (et Simondon) mesh w the quantum theory allusion for example?
Footnote explanation of harry potter ref please 'a Pensieve'
Link to Borge's library? "A Universal Library of recollections"
In general I feel like the text should be pushed further into one direction. If it is to be fiction then the disjuncted narrative voice is very effective, as well as the rich sensory feedback description, but the speculative fiction is not meaty enough, needs more development (perhaps more research into neuroscience? and embodied cognition?). If it is to be a different genre, with references that are only alluded to in a bibliography to hint at the theoretical reference, I feel that should be explained and justified.
-- Audrey
Hello Molly,
Thanks a lot for your contribution!
It is indeed great to see a challenge of the traditional formats, but as we talked about briefly in Malmö last week (and as some of the other respondents also have noted) it is not too easy to respond to a short story within a research forum. I'm not sure that this necessarily has anything to do with the inherent gap between artistic research vs. more traditional research, to me it rather seems related to a certain aura attached to the act of creative writing. Nevertheless, since it is this divide your research is challenging I think it could be helpful to find a way to help us (respondents) to overcome our awkwardness. So first of all on a very general level I was wondering if it maybe could help us if you let us know what you would like us to adress: fx what do you want us to pay attention to, what kind of feedback could be helpful, where do you struggle etc etc. It might sound a bit square, but actually I think it could guide us to give you a better directed, focused and thus more useful feedback.
Then more specifically to your contribution:
Your text made me think about content vs format and what it means to challenge one but maybe not the other - let me try to explain ...
It seems to me that you (at least on a meta-level) are making research on 'formats' i.e. experimenting' with the format of fiction as research (or research as fiction) and in this specific context of this seminar/master class relating it to the topic of execution and memory. Therefore I also feel that there is a lot more to be developed/explored/reflected on in the chosen format of your text. Essentially it is only the content of the text which touches upon these topics. I think it would be interesting, as a challenge of formats of research, if you even allowed yourself to explore the notion of execution/memory directly through the text's own format. So instead of creative writing, perhaps it could make sense to turn to more conceptual, or even 'uncreative' writing (in the terms of Kenneth Goldsmith) in order to reflect the relation between text, execution and memory.
Hope this is somehow helpful - looking forward to talk more about it when we meet.
All the best and until soon!
/l
Hi Molly,
When you talk about memory reconstruction, i am thinking about the article about "why we cant trust our memory" http://discovermagazine.com/2014/julyaug/12-hold-that-thought, also as you said the role of imagination.
/W
Hi Molly, just a follow up on "the pensive", and Barthes' outset in Balzac's "And the Marquise remained Pensive" (From Sarrasine)
"The Marquise can think of many of the things that have happened or that will happen, but about which we shall never mow anything: the infinite openness of the pensive (and this is precisely its structural function) removes this 6nallexia from any classification." (p. 216)
/Christian
About systems of Total Recall
http://people.ucsc.edu/~swhittak/papers/lifelogging_final.pdf