Connor’s article seemed to me syncretism run amok! I wish he would give a bit more reference to his arguments, as the things he is playfully engaging would be more fun if they had more justification. In the space of roughly a page we have Amphion’s magic lyre moving stones into place, medieval whispered sound, the theologian Lactantius’s Son of God, and the telephone. I wish he’d gone slower!
When I took issue with his assumptions, it made it hard to keep giving the benefit of the doubt. For example, when he mentions the telephone it makes me think of wireless towers now, and how voices emanate out in signal fields. Very different from rotary, or party lines and telegraph. Also, he doesn’t engage digital media or the internet in his argument, which seems unforgivable given that it was written for 2001.
Also, in the Pathos section, why is sound privileged for violence and suffering? What about paparazzi, the ubiquity of violation through surveillance, and unwanted blows and caresses? Also, the descent into preposterous argumentation…that Muppet is a conflation of mouth and puppet. I’m happy to grant creative discourse, but framing it philosophically seems silly to me. So I started to think more about the reading as a prompt than a position.
What are the corresponding semiotics of each sense? Clearly sight and sound are easy…handled with language written and spoken. Semiotics of touch I was thinking the handshake, the vibration of a phone, the touch on the leg under the table. Is that equivalent? Semiotics of smell and taste are harder. Perfumes and deodorants convey attitudes of sportiness and seduction perhaps, or naturalness. For taste the only thing I could think of was chicken noodle soup, or “down home cooking” and how food becomes culturally embedded. But I’m not sure that’s equivalent.
For the Sobchack article and prosthesis in general, a long-standing question I’ve had concerning it is that for people with artificial limbs, the lines for what constitutes normal physicality or ability seem fairly clear. But what I’m curious about (and this does totally dive into techno-fetishism, and may be tired) is that will there come a time when we honestly consider technology like smartphones a prosthesis? With the shift to credit cards over cash, will that eventually effect a person’s ability to survive in a city? Is that a fair argument? Personally speaking I would like to read more about technology as prosthesis, though I do like that we have Sobchack to start us out grounded in the prosaic and the practical.
Outside References
The Connor reminded me strongly of William Gass’s On Being Blue which is gonzo syncretic but doesn’t state a specific ideological point so much as provide a linguistic tour de force. Also, an amazing book on puppets and the nature of the sub/super-human is Victoria Nelson’s The Secret Lives of Puppets, which is also syncretic but felt much more rigorous and thoughtful.