mice dead in my closet
, was relieved to have found one but also semi-disappointed
image of dead mouse in closet + delirious stomach flu fever displaced into fiction of sensationalized battle
MaRTYR MARTYR MARTYR ETERNAL VALUES ETERNAL REVOLUTION
I drank the almond milk and it had gone bad which was probably why I got sick and nothing to do with my mice poisoning me
realized mouse was actual martyr and I was but a lowly pawn.
i recently went to a job interview at a gallery. immediately upon entering the gallery a woman greeted me and warmly told me to let her know if i had any questions. i asked her if she was kate. kate who i had been corresponding with via email, kate who i had an interview with. the woman was not kate, she was katherine – but kate was on her way. a few minutes later kate walks in. she’s wearing one of those delicate metal name necklaces that you rarely see on adults but are common on teenage girls. it says “kate” in silver block letters. my sister has one, she’s 13. her’s says “chloe” in gold cursive. “kate” and “chloe” are both common names, names jewelry stores carry, names jewelry designers include in their list of popular names, names that sell well.
kate leads me through the gallery, the walls are lined with black and white photos. i ignore them and imagine a giant magnetic sculpture in the center of the gallery. i imagine kate’s necklace slingshotting across the room and hitting the sculpture with metallic grace. the windows burst as hundreds of necklaces fly across the room and attach to the sculpture which soon bears multiples of every common name, in each spelling, as well as paper clips, bolts, watches, and other small metal objects. The sculpture loses shape beneath the bulk of chains and trinkets. i imagine rolling the sculpture out flat and slicing through its dense amalgamated surface. each strip a collection of identities, histories, etc. kate’s necklace, my earrings, and the wedding rings, molars, nose rings, keys, cufflinks of a million strangers.
diagram: pressure (at 16sec) and fallout of 150 kiloton atomic bomb detonated over Manhattan
WHAT IS A MICROPHONE?
1. What does it do?
Ideally, the microphone is the prime witness, the fact-checker, the testifier, (of) the world, but there are many ways this high position can be undermined. The microphone carries data that is evidence, tried and true, thus the beginning of the transference, transmittance, and amplification of energy.
2. What does it want to do?
The microphone wishes to help others (“others” can be you but please ask politely) and make them happy, it is good at doing the job.
3. What does it not want to do?
The microphone has no consciousness, and therefore no desire to hear anything. It has no right to declare when to start and stop. The microphone cannot possess ownership of itself; this ownership is constantly fleeing from the law. Public domain sound banks are the sounds of a free microphone owned by nothing but itself. Microphones on their own cannot fool, trick, or deceive, but their hardcoded, hardware, hard limitations may lead to their non committal / accidental participation of such acts.
4. Where can I find it?
iPhone, Headphones plus a little more, movies, speakers, Packages sealed with Amazon Prime tape, Big funerals for famous people, Big important places where people eat lunch outdoors.
5. What does a microphone feel?
Microphones are terrified and willing to pay premiums to distance themselves from the swimming pools and sandpaper-lined pockets that will come very close (but never completely) to their fragile electromagnetic components. It is apparent that the sight of a microphone in public is actually of the protective sheath or tunnel that will keep them out of harm’s way.
As a microphone gains thickness and prominence, they project a civility that will simultaneously protect and endanger them. Shrink them, and they will be hidden, but the chance of their will not being held by you will grow. When you buy a phone, the tiny microphone holds a promise to never, ever tat on your asshole being… but it also has no idea where said promise came from, nor does it possess an ability to apologize should this bond be broken.
HOW TO KILL A MICROPHONE:
In the developed, attackable world, microphones are supposedly as present as humans are, but when the local pyrotechnic violence punctures the Starbucks, there is a high likelihood that the microphones attached to the bodies were never informed of any fears to activate in the first place. Handing the voices of the lost to the blinking red light leave opportunities for confiscation, and the quelling of any fears through the destruction of any immediately noticeable microphone paraphernalia.
Do not use electrical tape to hide your edit. Let the confusion reach the speakers at the exact same time the other confusions do. The neutrality of a microphone loses all stability as soon as it is proliferated. Microphones no longer cover a start to end, but an endless chain of irregular and poorly angled cuts that extend for all infinity, coincidental intersections to permit. Confusions destroy microphones as their bits and waveforms are compressed to fit into the newsfeed.
With incredible speed, the microphone’s automatic noise reduction stabilizes the incredibly loud waveform and loss of life of a tragedy into that which could be transferred with little distortion and blood. The only way to achieve accuracy is to place the microphone right next to the bomb, of which the waveform is so strong that the automatic noise reduction is destroyed… as well as the microphone itself… as well as the consequent flow of data. If I want accurate sound I must go closer, but I will lose the microphone. If I want the sound, I must go farther, but I will lose accuracy. I hope one day we will comprehend the explosion, successfully transfer the explosion, and dissipate our giant conflicts through tiny explosions in our homes.
The fatal sound of a real explosion is actually far too terrifying, distorted, and incomplete. Real explosions are also of low quality, with the wishes of left unfulfilled: should’ve had more numbers, everyone at Pulse should’ve died, should’ve had less of an agenda. Hollywood provides excellent opportunities to protect your ears with high definition sounds operated at densities far too high to be real. Anticipated explosions are rife for exploitation and consumption, to be green-screened into the wrestling ring of the eight-packed, cherry syrup-encrusted Firstname Lastname.
A microphone can be killed in the midst of cost-cutting, space-saving measures to aid the manufacturer of a product. The Chelsea bombing of 2016 has no specific sound to be registered, because the only footage available is that of a bodega security camera. Designed for the economic collection of visual information to hopefully serve as evidence for the potential shoplifter, the task of collecting the auditory signals of the initial explosion, screams, and sirens are lost, is left to a domestic soundtrack of tapping and swiping fingers.
I would like to focus on the concept of the “interspecies interface,” in general terms. An image may perhaps be useful:
This image is the primary template for all interspecies interfaces. The interface always stands in as a middle term between two radically different creatures. The interface is an object at the same time that it is an event or a process. It is a mediator as well as the very act of mediation itself. When the interface is in place, the constitutive difference between species A and species B is in some way erased; but, in many other ways, this constitutive difference remains and is perhaps accentuated. So the interface is a machine that changes the way that differences between two species are configured in relation to one another; in so doing, the interface also changes how each species configures itself in relation to itself. The moment of interfacing is one in which two species together enter into a state of exception (c.f. Agamben) in regards to what they are in relation to one another or in relation to themselves.
related texts and ephemera: Preliminary theses on the “interspecies interface” (p.1) / The Open: Man and Animal (2004) by Giorgio Agamben
I would like to focus on the concept of the “interspecies interface.” Let us recall a diagram from earlier:
What I want to highlight at this juncture is the prosthetic character of the interface. As an object, the interface is always a prosthesis, albeit a unique one. Medically speaking, the prosthesis is always meant to fill a gap, to replace something missing in the subject and make them whole (again). The interface is something of a double prosthesis, in the sense that it fills in two gaps in two different beings…
So, the interface is a prosthetic mediator (as well as a prosthetic act of mediation) between two different species or entities. It is a technology that connects two discontinuous entities to one another; the form of connection that is enacted by the interface is one that transforms all three members of the encounter (species A, interface, species B) into components of a prosthetic assemblage, in which differences between species or even topologies of inside/outside become suspended or momentarily confused.
An outside technology created by one species—or more truthfully, co-created by both species—emerges from the desire to connect the two species to one another. Once the interface has come into being, it descends upon the situation as an insertion, filling out the gap between and thus outside the two species at the same time that it fills out the gaps inside the species themselves. So the prosthesis mediates-between at the same time that it temporarily constitutes the very being of each member of the encounter. The interface is both outside and inside each species, a technology that draws a line of contiguity across interiority and exteriority, across being and communication and desiring and touching…
3.1 Consent Machines & Consenting Beasts, written by Nilo Goldfarb…
An outside technology created by one species—or more truthfully, co-created by both species—emerges from the desire to connect the two species to one another. Once the interface has come into being, it descends upon the situation as an insertion, filling out the gap between and thus outside the two species at the same time that it fills out the gaps inside the species themselves. The term “insertion” here is potent. At risk of conjuring the field of Freudian association and error, I want to quickly run through a thought that this piece provoked about consent.
3.1.1 Consent Machines
Being: a question—at what stage is it possible or necessary to affirm consent? Is it fair to speak of a primary interrogative stage in which two subjects produce a contract that they will both exchange attentions? And must the consent precede consent? That is, must one consent to the primary interrogative? In contemporary human discourse, it often seems that there are vaguely defined boundaries about what kinds of questions must precede others. Also a tendency to want real hardline distinctions for the purpose of prosecuting rape etc. I think this is one of the bizarre cases of Logocentrism where the function of the logos is inverted to represent the case of the feminine subject in court. Still using Derrida (loosely), in terms of the performative and the constative, there seems to be a necessary expectation for a particular chain of functional activities. For consent to occur there must be a necessary field of the constitutive activity preceding performative activity, and a necessary margin of limitation on what kinds of disruption can occur. In legal discourse, and the cultural discourses tethered to the court, it seems that there is a stark division on the grounds of the physical and the verbal. It is of course the case that the field of communication is diverse enough that there is a definite negative dimension to this simplistic breakdown. (It is, however, necessary to insist that I am not inferring any pragmatic vision—I have no where near arrived at this.) Specifically I think it could be fruitful to think through the difference between communication and interfacing in terms of consent.
The differences between humans and non-humans must raise new questions for the field of consent and it is difficult to know in what direction the implications might be allowed to travel—If we can learn about interhuman communication from our attempts to communicate with animals or if we must develop entirely separate machines for consent. Maybe we are only really learning about ourselves.
3.1.2 Consenting Beasts
Another which is about the limits of the extra-discursive (a general theoretical rupture that I see between “post-structuralist” and contemporary critical modalities such as “inhumanism,” “object-oriented ontology” etc). The basic questions that seem to arise in the wake of post-structuralism about the potential influence of objects and non-humans is whether or not these figures can enter discourse without concealing the boundaries of that discourse. Could this be considered a sort of bestiality by which the non-human enters human discourse without consent, only to be puppeted by Western philosophy in a largely regressive turn to the non-verbal out-there?
related texts and ephemera: Preliminary theses on the “interspecies interface” ( 1 )