Tuesday, 17 August 2010

Slap my flappy junk

I just don't swallow it. In any case, chew over this: Clearly humans are not just meat - "meat" is a pretty ambiguous term, loosely, read as: "that part of the animal which can be used for food". What is odd about this very limited and misleading characterisation, is that it appears the "aliens" are not themselves meat eaters and, so, why would their chosen adjective for us be "meat"? It is not even as if we would, exclusively, or even predominately, choose it as a defining - if somewhat cannibalistic - epithet for ourselves. Having said that, they (the "aliens") appear to smoke, which is suggestive of lungs and a respiratory system and, if the evidence of the cups on the table is anything to go by, they also drink, which is suggestive of a metabolic system at least comparable, in some way, to our own. Though, of course, we don't see them take a drink; nor do we see smoke. Their appearance may be merely a convenient projection ... perhaps visually alluded to as they "dematerialise" towards the conclusion ... yet, earlier, one of them explains to the other: "You know how when you slap or flap meat, it makes a noise?" (or some such phraseology), which also suggests they are at least capable of interacting with the world on a physical basis; they can embed themselves, or are embedded in, solid matter. In what form, we are left to guess, except, presumably, it isn't "meat", but something capable of sensory feedback ("slap"; "flap"; and "sound"). Anyway, so the "meat" can "communicate" through machines and the "meat", in some sense, can also embed itself in the machines, though the meat does "the thinking" through them - how this is possible is not explained, but one assumes that the "meat" crafts the machines to reflect, in some analogical processes, their "meat" thinking. So, the "aliens" don't want to further their contact with the "meat", because, "Who wants to meet meat?" - presumably they are referring to some property of meat, or perception thereof, that makes it (rationally?) undesirable to interact with, yet it is unclear what that quality is, or the class of things encompassed by the "who". Perhaps, the ultimate irony is, both the "aliens" and "meat" are sentient beings, but they would choose not to interact with us based on the stuff we are (or are not) "embedded" within, yet, by their own argument, the "meat" can embed itself in non-meat machines (and, therefore, is not merely confined to - defined alone - by "meat"). Indeed, the very fact that communication is possible (they can grasp "meat" thoughts), suggests that the stuff sentient both beings are embedded "in" does not entirely characterise their sentience (thought is not the same as meat or whatever they are made of); hence we could describe this short film as indulging in absurdism. Ham-fisted absurdism.

Victory is hollow. Don't dine out on it.

The cheek is firmly in my tongue.

See also:

Bot-on-bot chat

No comments:

Post a Comment