I did the necessary patent research before deciding to throw out the idea to be sure there was something that I could ground "this" re-patent in prior art. There is not much in the area of Human Computer Interfaces, only three patents and even though they are not doing exactly doing the same "work" nor are these artifacts implanted within the human body, these patents allow me to ground the project in the prior art. Therefore, because of these three other inventions it makes possible to write the re-invention patent.
This particular invention provided me greater space in advertising. This was only remotely in the back of my mind because I was expecting Shipka to reign me in a little or even ask a few questions in class when I brought up the thought. Basically, I was throwing out some raw meat to see if anyone would chew it up causing me to switch to something a little more grounded. Shipka nor anyone else said a word and I have no idea what the silence meant if that was approval or not so I decided to go for the gold.
Cover page
The cover page performs the work of an advertisement, introduces what the artifact/system is and does, and shows the reader why one needs this artifact/system.
First there is the slogan, “When you absolutely cannot communicate that idea… …there’s the Cyberpeople Jack: The human interface method and apparatus." The word “absolutely” is italicized emphasizing the point that the user has run out of alternatives to communicate the image within one’s inner space-inside one’s mind-to outer space-the space between the message sender and the message receiver. The word “that” is italicized emphasizing the point that represents an artifact, a person, a concept, an object or some thing the user cannot seem to explain with existing means of communication or due to expertise. The artifact to the right should be obvious: a Central Processing Unit (CPU) known to most of us as a computer with a monitor sitting on top of the CPU. The artifact to the left is the logo of the company The Integral Worm. The integration symbol in mathematics has been rearticulated as a cartoonish character: a worm with a grin. The two cables attaching to the worm and the computer are the transmission cables that allow one to input visual information directly into the CPU and display the image on the monitor. The worm is smiling because now anyone standing in front of the monitor can now visually see what the worm is trying to convey in this case he is displaying the image a particular mathematical equation creates in the worm’s mind: a fractal. “Brought to you by” in italics informs the reader that the name of the company that received this patent will be introduced. “The Integral Worm” announces to the reader what company received this patent. Underneath the company name the words “United States Patent” to the left inform the reader that this is a patent document and that the artifact/system the “Cyberpeople Jack” has received patent number 15,587,398 shown to the right. The name “Paul” on the left is the last name of the inventor who received the patent and the date to the right, December 28, 2010 informs the reader when the invention was approved by the patent office.
Abstract page
A user, most likely an employee or maybe the CEO is shown using the “Cyberpeople Jack” doing something that the “Cyberpeople Jack” is incapable of doing: an abstract describing what the artifact is and does is displayed. This may be misleading but if one observes, the user is typing on a keyboard demonstrating the versatility of the apparatus. One can be connected to the computer and do other types of computing while the “Cyberpeople Jack” remains in sleep mode or inactive. The user controls on/off with the use of their mind’s electro-chemical signals.
Cross reference to related application
The inventor, P. Christopher Paul (P.C. Paul) is speaking to the reader explaining that The Integral Worm applied for a patent for this artifact on August 31, 2005 and the patent office did not approve the request. This date has a second meaning. August 31, 2005 was the first day of classes at UMBC in the fall of 2005 when I met this new professor, Shipka. Both of us were highly motivated in our own ways: I have ambitions of continuing my education in graduate school and Shipka was teaching her first semester at UMBC after leaving an eight year term teaching at University of Illinois, Urbana-Champlain. The class was closed and I needed the course in order to graduate so I begged to be admitted. At the end of the week I saw what was expected of me academically in all of the courses I registered for and realized I could not perform to my own expectations. I dropped the two courses or abandoned the idea of completing all my academic requirements in the fall and decided to re-enroll in Shipka’s classes in the spring of 2006. This describes why the date August 31, 2006 was chosen.
Figure 1
Figure 1 forecasts that the text following will explain what the “Cyberpeople Jack” claims to do and not do. Shipka, the patent examiner says to herself, “I can’t believe I’m speaking to a worm,” because this is the first time and only time she has or will speak to a “worm.” The Integral Worm says, “I can’t believe I’m speaking to a Person… Where’s my computer?” because the worm is not accustomed to face-to-face oral communication with human beings. The worm prefers conversing through the computer because there is an absence of non-verbal semiotics; boy language, eye contact, and emotional expression. Levity is used in order to engage the reader. After all, in science and technology if one were found speaking to a “worm” one would certainly not be taken seriously or permitted access into the discourse of science and technology. On the other hand, the levity draws non-science types into the social discourse.
Figure 2
Figure 2 reiterates what is shown in the abstract: that the “Cyberpeople Jack” will allow the computer user to input visual information from their brain into a computer and display the image on a computer monitor. The Mohawk haircut acts as a semiotic message to the reader that “this” invention is not for everyone. This person is a cyber-punk. The computer user says, “‘This’ is what I mean. See?” In order to enforce the message to the viewer that there was no other way to convey the intended message other than inputting their thought into the computer to receive a visual output of what they meant. The image the viewer sees on the monitor is that of a child the test subject saw while visiting Tibet. This image is very complex and is beyond the person’s abilities to convey under normal circumstances. The Tibetan child is not significant other than I am personally interested in Tibet.
Figure 3
Figure 3 illustrates how the genetically engineered nerve bundle is implanted into the computer user’s spinal cord in order to pick up the electro-chemical synapse of the user’s brain. The eyes are a semiotic message to the viewer that the computer user is concentrating. The thought bubble plays with the notoriously bad acting of William Shatner, well known by the Star Trek Trekies. Again, this is for the purpose of entertainment.
Figure 4
This figure shows a Venn diagram plus the nerve bundle connecting to the BIOS chip. The Venn diagram in a graphic illustration does work that words do not do easily. There are two circles. The left circle represents the electro-chemical signal of the human brain. The right circle represents the electrical signal of the computer. The intersection of the two circles illustrates that the BIOS chip must convert the human signal to a computer signal. The Venn diagram illustrates this at a glance while text can become cumbersome to read and comprehend. The arrows above the nerve bundle and the BIOS chip illustrate that the intended design of electrical and information flow is unidirectional. This is intentional plus necessary in order for the disaster news wire to occur. The text for figure 4 explains that the electrochemical synapses of the user’s brain are interpreted by the BIOS chip. This sentence explains the work the nerve bundle and the BIOS chip do.
Figure 5
Figure 5 illustrates in an enlarged view what the bio-jack looks like. The bio-jack is drawn in the draftsman tradition showing all views so one can construct the artifact from the illustration. The reason why the bio-jack is rough or wiggly looking is to somehow represent that this is flesh created in a test tube from the user’s own DNA. The reason the DNA of the user is used is to prevent the user’s body from rejecting a foreign protein or for that matter, foreign nerve endings. The illustration is meant to show that the microchip is embedded in flesh before the user undergoes an operation in order to have the nerve bundle of the bio-jack grafted to the user’s spinal cord. The text explains to the user the significance of these images and what work the bio-jack does.
Figure 6
In figure 6 the cyberpunk is used for two reasons. One to add levity to what may now seem like a frightful invention and two, to demonstrate exactly where the IEEE 1394 firewire jack and the USB 2.0 jack are visible on the human body. The cyberpunk says to the reader that the Cyberpeople Jack is “virtually undetectable.” This statement has been recontextualized from an old
Monty Python's Flying Circus skit and plays with that audience. In the Monty Python skit a man walks into a department store and is secretly pulled aside to a room where toupees are sold. All the salesmen are wearing tupes and none of the tupes match the salesman’s natural hair color. The salesmen throw the sales pitch that the toupee is “virtually undetectable” when in fact, the toupees are quite noticeable. The cyberpunk is throwing as bad a sales pitch as the toupee salesmen did. The bio-jack is quite noticeable with short hair as the cyberpunk sarcastically thinks to himself in the thought bubble. This image also reinforces the idea of the invention: jacking one’s visual thoughts onto the screen of a computer monitor and illustrates how the cables are routed.
The paragraph between the figure descriptions of figures 6 and 7 acts is a transitional paragraph for the reader. This paragraph causes the reader to reflect back in their mind to the image of Shipka, the patent examiner and The Integral Worm discussing the worm’s claim. The worm is now going to talk about how the computer user with the Cyberpeople Jack will manipulate the computer cursor in order to manipulate the image the user has displayed on the computer screen.
Figure 7
Figure 7 is a repeat of figure 3 except the work the image does here in figure 7 is demonstrate how the genetically engineered nerve bundle is implanted into the computer user’s spinal cord in order to pick up the electro-chemical synapse of the user’s brain. The image is repeated to reinforce the fact that the USB socket is implanted the same way as the IEEE 1394 firewire socket.
Figure 8
Figure 8 is a repeat of figure 4 except the work the image does here in figure 8 is demonstrate how the USB socket
communicates the same way as the IEEE 1394 firewire socket.
Figures 9 and 10
Figures 9 and 10 are figures 5 and 6 recontextualized. Instead of doing the work to describe the IEEE 1394 firewire female socket of the bio-jack, figures 9 and 10 do the same work for the USB 2.0 standard female socket in conveying meaning to the reader visually. Levity is also the same.
Figures 11 and 12
The cyberpunk is back from figure 2 except now he/she demonstrates how the user can manipulate the computer’s mouse cursor/pointer (fig. 11). In addition to being able to grab the cursor, the cursor can be used to rotate the image he/she is concentrating/projecting onto the computer monitor and rotate the image at will displaying all sides of the object. “These” two slides visually demonstrate the capabilities of the Cyberpeople Jack system. The cyberpunk adds levity to the re-patent but also sends a semiotic message that the Cyberpeople Jack is not for everyone. In other words, there are many people who would not want to have their brain "jacked" into a computer. On the other hand, cyberpunks are usually avant guard and daring so Cyberpeople would appeal to "this" audience even if in only an entertaining way.
The image used is a painting created by Salvador Dali. I used Salvador Dali not only because of my “own” interest in his work but because much of his surrealist period is way out there and may be recognized by “this” audience. The second reason for choosing “this” particular painting of Dali’s was that Dali painted the second image showing the detail of the child. “This duality of switching perspectives suited my purpose of manipulating an image therefore this is why I chose to recontextualize the Dali painting. There is no other significance in having chosen "this" image.
Figure 13
Figure 13 is figure 1 recontextualized. This figure acts as a transition and as a forecast as to what will come next in the text, mainly the background of the invention the Cyberpeople Jack.
Levity is used once again for the purpose of entertaining a lay audience. The text bubbles I inserted did become a thorn in my side as I could not decide whether to use them or not. The Worm appears to make a sexist remark, at least this is what we are led to think. I had to pain over “this” because it was difficult for me to decide whether “this” was humor or not. The Worm’s comment is trite but I decided to go with the Worm’s remark because he’s a worm and because he is a worm, I believe “this” is why the remark can be interpreted as humor. Also I deliberately emphasized the woman’s control over the situation with the words, “get on with it, worm.” In other words, “enough of your stupid remarks,” the comma after “it” places emphasis on the next word “worm.” Also note that the spelling has changed indicating that Shipka is not referring to the worm by proper name but is referring to the worm as the creature that boroughs into the dirt. Shipka is no longer referring to him as a character or being but a creature less than human. “This” is why I think the humor works.
The narrative for figure 13 clarifies the purpose of the image. The Integral Worm is going to describe the invention and what fields of science it resides in. The Worm informs the reader how many different sciences the Cyberpeople Jack combines. The Worm once again informs the reader what this system or artifact will do.
Figure 14
When the surgeon on the left says, “Don’t worry, you won’t feel a thing,” the reader knows from previous experience these are “famous last words” and “this” procedure is going to hurt like Hell. The fear in this situation is only doubled by the second surgeon agreeing with the first by saying, “That’s right, that’s right.” The second surgeon agreeing with the first surgeon and not addressing the patient or the reader also sets up a situation of us versus them or us versus other.
The image itself places the reader in the position of being the patient in this figure. Even though the text bubbles are meant to be satirical, the position of being the recipient of the Cyberpeople Jack should send a chill down the reader’s spine and start to make them think twice of what “this” technology infers as far as it’s ethical considerations.
If the image is not enough of a warning, the narrative reinforces the dangers in “this” technology by briefly describing the two surgical procedures and the lab procedure to the reader.
Figure 15
More satire is used when the first lab tech wiggles the two nerve bundles around and quotes the 1931 version of
Frankenstein, “It’s alive, Alive!” The second lab tech says, “Grow up would you.” The text bubbles and the behavior of the lab tech plays with the word "maturation" used in the narrative implying that there is a lack of maturity or lack of concern towards the ethical implications of “this” invention with all the people involved in the project.
The second lab tech ending with the statement “Hey what’s for lunch anyway?” should act as a “sign” to the reader that everyone involved with “this” invention thinks that they are simply doing their job and that there is no recourse for their actions. Everyone involved in the project takes on the attitude that “It’s a living.” Figures 14 and 15 should act as semiotic “wake up” calls to the reader and indicate the grave ethical considerations implied by “this” invention.
There is a second pun played here, one the reader of "this" document will not understand. Only those who go on to read the
History of "This" Space: UMBC Food will catch a networking thread as this thread is subtle. The statement "Hey, What's for lunch anyway," plays and forecasts the boundary-crossing argument of how we currently purchase food and how food should actually be sold, in particular lunch. In order to understand the connecting thread one needs to read the
History of "This" Space: UMBC Food
Figure 16
Surgeons are shown in a photograph using a surgical robot used for some other operating procedure. “This” image found on the Internet was recontextualized to fit within my re-patent because a procedure this complex would no doubt use a robot for precision and a computer to locate exactly where to graft the nerve endings of the bio-jack. “This” image heightens the reality of what is being done in “this” re-invention and also heightens the ethical considerations that should be made before such an invention is experimented with.
Figures 17 and 18
Figures 17 and 18 are the “workhorse” sketches of “this” invention. “These” sketches are what keep the patent in the science fiction genre and prevent the patent from falling into the fantasy genre. Now the question is why? As Leonardo da Vinci did in his sketches in the 1500’s, I have thrown out the intellectual “raw meat” to the science community proposing a suggestion as to how to integrate the human mind with the computer. Da Vinci in his sketches of helicopters and flying machines provided suggestions as to how to make these things happen and “this” is the “work” that my sketches do.
These sketches were extremely difficult because I had to “think through, visualize, and cross over” scientifically from one discipline to another how one could go boundary-crossing between the biological and the mechanical. All of my suggestions are beyond the known sciences at this time. What I suggest is creating nerve tissues within a Petri dish and growing them to maturity within the laboratory. Next, there would have to be some cross-substance, part biological and part mechanical that would act as an electrical conduit that the human body would not reject but could carry the electrical current produced by nerve endings into the man-made materials of the slave BIOS (Basic Input Output System). As the sum of a system, the signal being outputted by the bio-jack would still be the raw signal of the human mind. The problem is how to convert the human mind signal to a computer signal. “This” is where the computer scientist and mathematicians step in. What I propose is a type of firmware which coverts the signal of the human mind to a computer signal. One could think of the firmware as being a bridge language that “speaks” the language of the human mind and converts “this” language into computer language. In other words, converting the code of the human mind into computer code. The way “this" would be done is through the use of mathematical algorithms converting from the domain of the human mind to the domain of the computer.
Figure 17 becomes an engineering proposal sketch of how one physically connects the human mind to the hardware apparatus. The sketch is clearly laid out in typical engineering format explaining exactly what it means and does not mean. Each particular component of the Cyberpeople Jack is laid out so that it can be manufactured from the diagram minus dimensions and materials because “this” is all theory or concept. Components of the Cyberpeople Jack are clearly laid out and labeled.
Figure 18 is the “workhorse” of the concept or theory as how the human mind would communicate with a computer. In order to explain the concept to myself it occurred to me that what I was doing was domain crossing but that it would be impossible to map across the two domains directly. There would have to be an intermediary: something or someone that could “speak” both languages and act as a translator from one language to the other. This is when it occurred to me what would be necessary is firmware that could bridge cross the two boundaries or act as an agent that would become a boundary-crosser mediating between the two objects.
Figure 17 and 18 were the two thoughts in my mind that as a
scientist were perplexing. I could not see or visualize how "this" patent was working and I had to may some kind of a proposal in order to prevent from entering into the realm of fantasy. Regardless if the proposal is possible or not I had to propose something grounded in science to avoid having magic gnomes acting as the translators from the language of the human mind to the language of the computer. It was the sketches that cleared up how “this” communication was to occur and if this was not thought out step by step the magic gnomes would have crept in.
Figure 17 is not a sketch but a technical illustration following good illustration design. Starting from the left it is assumed that it is unnecessary to show the full length of the nerve bundle so the squiggly line represents a cutaway of the nerve bundle The nerve bundle is clearly labeled by placing the name of the object within its shape. This informs the reader what he/she is looking at. The next detail shown is the nerve endings of the nerve bundle. The nerve endings are drawn in the same color as the nerve bundle to convey to the reader that “this” is the same material. An arrow is drawn from the label to one of the nerve endings to inform the reader what these lines represent. The dots at the end of the nerve endings and the beginning of the bio-electrical conductive material symbolize that some kind of link is made between the dissimilar materials. The bio-electrical conductive material is drawn in green so the reader realizes at a glance that “this” is a different material from the nerve endings and the wiring of the BIOS chip. The word bio-electrical conductive material is used because it is unimportant as to what “its” name is at this point in time. The name of this material is left as a challenge to scientists to determine “what” this material is and what to call it. The bio-electrical conductive material ends with dots representing that something must mate from “this” dissimilar material to the wiring of the BIOS chip. Again what “this” material is left to the scientists to determine. Next the BIOS wiring which is labeled with an arrow pointing to one of the wires so the reader understands what this is. Next is the square labeled BIOS and last is the biogenetic material that is visually seen on the computer operator’s neck. The IEEE 1394 firewire female jack and the USB 2.0 standard female jack are shown and clearly labeled as is the tradition of good technical illustration. There is probably an error here in that the firewire jack and the USB jack are probably not the same size in order to prevent connecting the wrong communication cable into the wrong socket.
Figure 18 is a graphic illustrating a concept that should be readily understood by mathematicians and computer scientists. “This” illustration is typically used to explain the concept of mapping from one domain to another. Again it is left as a challenge as to how “this” mapping from the human mind to the computer shall occur.
The text accompanying figures 17 and 18 is similar to the previous pages elaborating the claim of what the invention does except now the explanation is expanded therefore the text becomes more dense.
Figure 19
The “Cricket” sketch acts as comic relief and also as a transition from the field of the invention to the description of the prior art or previous inventions “this” invention positions itself against. I wanted the reader to sense the same reaction that “this” invention received while discussing my idea in the workshops. The text description says, “The Integral Worm has finished answering Shipka’s question about the invention” to imply to the reader that this image is meant to be interpreted as a sign. The sketch is meant for the reader to reflect on what they have read so far and determine if they feel the same
shock everyone felt during the workshops.
The reason the sound of the cricket is posted in the smallest font nearest the cricket with the font increasing in size moving upward is to create a rhetorical effect. The more Shipka thinks about this invention, the louder the sound of the cricket gets in her mind and the reader’s mind. The sound is meant to be ominous.
Figure 20
This figure introduces the next section in which The Integral Worm will discuss with the patent examiner what need prompted the design of the invention the Cyberpeople Jack, what previous inventions “this” invention positions itself against, and how those previous inventions did what they did.
Figure 21
This figure plays with the ideas in the text, specifically “art, sculpture, mathematical symbolism or language. First, the reader sees someone at the drawing board trying to draw the idea in his/her head and the person drawing says, “’This’ isn’t working,” because “this” person lacks artistic abilities. The next person is a doctor, obviously Doctor McCoy of
Star Trek because of his statement, “I’m a doctor damn it, not a bloody sculptor.” Doctor McCoy never said “damn it” or “bloody” on broadcast television but “these” are the words we were meant to hear if there was no censorship. Our minds are left to fill in the blanks. The third person is a student mathematician struggling with mathematical symbolism and obviously isn’t getting “it.” The last person is struggling with expressing an idea in language. I’m sure we have all overheard a conversation in a coffee shop like this one.
Figure 22
Here a mathematician is shown and a cyberpunk. Mathematicians were the first to begin using computers and hand coded programs to determine what some of the equations they could so fluently equate but many still had no idea what “these” equations looked like because of their complexity, mainly fractals. Once the fractal is shown on the computer there is no small wonder why only a gifted few could actually “visualize” what the equation looked like. The cyberpunk is showing the reader another
Salvador Dali image, which is nearly impossible to describe in words, therefore the image assists us (the viewers) to understand what words or artistic ability fail to explain.
Figure 23
I chose to sketch the most notable sentence in "this" text to emphasize the training involved in order to do any type of work on the computer. My emphasis is that a tremendous amount of time and money is spent in training people how to use the computer. The image depicted with the students “not getting it” is typical in computer training classes. Each person learns various ways and at various speeds. Many times the instructor finds him or herself running around the lab from computer to computer trying to catch everyone up to the current step in the lesson. A fractal is shown on the training monitor because “this” is one of the simplest images to create on a computer yet the equations used to create fractals are the most difficult to understand. The equations that produce fractals are only introduced in senior level undergraduate level classes and even then, only as elective classes. “These” equations are found in courses such as
Non-linear Dynamical Systems (Chaos Theory) and are well beyond the average person’s training in mathematics (two years beyond the engineer and scientist level to be exact). Therefore few people ever become aquantinted with fractals even though fractals are easy to create.
The text explains what the current problem is with computers, computer programs, and people using computers and computer programs. Point blank, our lives are spent working for the machine when technology is supposed to be about the machine working for people. Obviously, there is a vast need for improvement in terms of how computers function.
There is a second interpretation for “this” sketch which has nothing to do with the Patent Communicative Objective and was not a conscious decision but a sub-conscious decision. This sub-conscious decision occurred to me as I was assembling the “Party Sketch” or the last sketch. The four students in unison say, “I dunno.” The first couple of weeks within the “Shipka Spaces,” Shipka showed us many examples of her students’ work while she was teaching at the University of Illinois Champlain-Urbana. Many of the examples were demonstrated on a laptop. Therefore, minus the computer lab and the fractal shown, the professor at the front of the class could be interpreted as “Shipka” leading a discussion about the work that she expects from us during the semester. A similar sketch appears throughout the process sketches of ALL the projects. At this time, all of my peers within the “Shipka Spaces” had no idea of what to make of the I of U students’ work or Shipka’s expectations. A mutual cry was constantly heard of either “I don’t get it” or “I dunno.” Slowly, by negotiating meaning with each other (my peers), most us began to understand Shipka’s expectations.
The four students could be interpreted by Shipka and my other peers within the “Shipka Spaces” as the four Writing Center tutors who without our conscious decision formed a “Shipka Think Tank.” Naphtali Barsky, wearing the yamaka and eyeglasses, Steven Norfolk, with the dark eyes, Matt Bowen, with the bushy eyebrows, and P.C. Paul with the snake eyes could be interpreted as the “Four Writing Tutors.” I will explain the use of the “snake eyes” representing myself later in “this” text when I analyze the “Cast of Characters.” I happen to notice “this” interpretation while creating the last sketch and decided to give one of the student’s a yamaka in order to enforce “this” sub-conscious decision.
“This” becomes a parody of ourselves and our relationship with Shipka. At first, the four of us “didn’t get it” but as the weeks wore on we all had our individual “Satori’s” or sudden enlightenment. Eventually, we became a “research team” consulting each other and acting as meaning makers checking each others work. We were constantly checking with each other asking, “what meaning do you make of “this”” -- now it should become clear why “this” is constantly in quotations -- and recontextualizing a question Shipka finds herself asking others, “Is it good?” The problem is, for “us” - Shipkaites - we are constantly breaking down modes and mediums, and rebuilding them making new meaning that we become unsure as to whether “this” makes sense, am I conveying the meaning I intend, do you know what I mean? The meaning the designer sees within the modes and mediums is not always the same as what the reader sees. There are always different ways of seeing and to miss one of these ways means that we have missed an intended meaning. Therefore, we need to consult with our trusted personal editors as ALL writers do. Those who can offer constructive criticism and who are not afraid to say, “I don’t get it.”
Figure 24
“This” sketch is quite simple and explains the “work” patent 5,265,201 is doing for a lay person. “This" sketch is “not” as simple as it seems. Examining the text within the computer monitors there is a subtle recontextualization being played out. Only a few science fiction buffs will recognize where a similar dialog has appeared. In the British science fiction television series,
Blake’s 7 (1978)
on one of the space ships (the Scorpio), the commander as a joke changed the programming of the flight computer on the Scorpio so the computer recognized its name as
Slave and of course it (the computer) always addressed the commander as Master. The
computer was forever apologizing for every action and command it carried out. The humor of this for those who recognize the sniveling computer will remember that the flight computer of Blake’s ship, the Liberator, was named
Zen, basically referring to the computer as God. As we all know, if there is a God, God does what it does and explains nor apologies for any decisions it makes. The idea of naming the computers Slave and Zen is quite satirical in its own right but here in “this” patent, the satire is that the human mind is the master to the PC (personal computer) who is the slave. The satire is currently most times it seems the computer operator is the slave working for the computer and not the other way around.
Figure 25
The text for “this” sketch discusses patent 6,686,844 whose purpose is to scan and secure a room or space for protecting property. When I read this my mind flashed back to the US television series,
Lost in Space (1965-1968) when the Robot (the robot’s name was Robot because no one at that time anticipated a robot being an entity until Arthur C. Clarke’s HAL in 2001: A Space Odyssey.) and all I could hear was a computer reciting, “DANGER Will Robinson, DANGER!" That’s about ALL I remember “that” robot saying. I figured that patent 6,686,844 is discussing securing a space, the Lost in Space robot shouting seemed appropriate. Now of course I needed a door and someone entering the secure space. I chose a “green door” in order to play with the well-known title of the pornographic movie
Behind the Green Door. To move beyond a "green door" and find that the “new space” is not only secured but that there is a robot within, screaming an alarm that the said “space” is no longer secured plays with the purpose of patent 6,686,844. At this point I have been playing with
Salvador Dali’s
artwork so much, I decided why not have Dali himself appear in the flesh. Salvador Dali is dead. So what could be more ominous or dangerous than a dead person peering around a door, a “green door” of all things? Plus Dali is a pretty strange looking dude to begin with so I guess I’d be shouting "DANGER" too. Again I think this is satirical and plays well to “this” audience.
Once the image of Salvador Dali, the Lost in Space robot, and the “green door” was laid out I already had text typed up I was going to use. I stopped examining “this” image. The way the image turned out, I very well could have stopped at this point and left the image with just the “green door,” Dali, and the robot leaving the reader to make their own meaning. Those who recognize the robot would also be familiar with the robot’s constant shouting of “Warning, Warning! Danger approaching.” I had to assume that there are others who would not recognize the robot nor what the robot shouted so I decided to make “this” clear to the reader and also so the reader would understand why the image of the robot was being used in reference to patent 6,686,844 whose purpose is to secure an external space.
Dali’s expression looks like one of surprise therefore the reader might have understood from reading the text that the robot was representing patent 6,686,844 but again I was not sure if the reader would assume the meaning I was making. I made Dali’s first words, “Uh, Oh,” because when one reads the text and reads the robot’s text bubble, the reader realizes that Dali has just opened the “green door” and has entered a “secured space so his expression is one of surprise. The next Dali makes is recontextualized from the Monty Python Flying Circus, The Spanish Inquisition skit. Some readers may not understand the pun here if they are not familiar with Salvador Dali. Salvador Dali was born in Spain and considered a Spaniard. The Spanish Inquisition occurred nearly 600 years ago, conducted by extreme Catholic followers, and Dali himself is Spanish therefore, Dali would not expect to find himself on the other side of the door.
At “this” point I should further explain the constant use of Salvador Dali and his works of art because it is now becoming a theme throughout the patent. Salvador Dali has been named one of the greatest 20th century artists. Dali is best known for his surrealist period in which many of his works are dreamlike in quality. This dreamlike theme plays well with the entire patent because as the reader continues to read through the documentation created for “this” re-patent, the entire concept of connecting the human mind to a computer seems dreamlike therefore, Dali and the concept of the re-patent play off each other. When choosing Dali artworks to recontextualize, I was very selective as much of his artwork contains some extreme opinions in politics, religion, and sex therefore, the images I chose to recontextualize were all from his surrealist period but also artworks that I deemed politically safe and absent of the aforementioned messages.
Figure 26
Reading patent 6,931,359 all I could think of was a person in a test lab with all kinds of sensors attached to their body reading various vitals of the person. I have done such tests for the Maryland Psychiatric Center as part of the healthy control group and I can confirm that having such sensors connected to one is not fun. After about 45 minutes you just want the task to be over with so the "scratching" will stop. Having the sensors within clothing leads me to think that “this” is no more pleasant than having the sensors attached to your skin. After reading this I had to find a picture/photograph of someone with all “these” sensors attached to them. A photograph would do the “best” work in conveying the image to a reader. The caption, “All this ‘scratching’ is making me itch,” has been recontextualized from the
Beastie Boys song (if you can call a prank phone call a song)
Cookie Puss. First the idea of “scratching” occurred to me from my experiences with wearing the sensors. The reason the sensors “scratch” is because they use a cornstarch paste to make them adhere to a person’s body and as the cornstarch dries out, the cornstarch and not the sensors make one itch.
Second, “scratching” refers to what DJ’s do on the turntables in Hip-Hop and Rap. Elizabeth Piccirillo in ENGL 407 discussed in the Communicative Objective 2 workshop about doing an analysis of Suburban Hip-Hop. Her discussion made my mind flashback when Hip-Hop was born, about 1982, and I remember this being played on College Radio and listening to “this” new art form on the NYC Underground Music Scene. Grand Master Flash, Run DMC, and the Beastie Boys were a few of the artists we were introduced to at the time. "Scratching" vinyl on the turntables was quite common in Hip-Hop and Beastie Boys was the first to play a pun with the term "scratching” by having a sound bite in Cookie Puss with a woman saying, “All this 'scratching' is making me itch.” After the sound bite was played, of course the DJ within the song begins doing some serious "scratching" on the turntables. A few people in the audience might recognize the sound bite or quote, most won’t. Again, I think it plays nicely with the theme of Human Computer Interaction (HCI).
Figure 27
“This” figure acts as a rhetorical transition and a forecast. Figure 27 informs the reader the focus of the re-patent narrative-sketch will now discuss the components or artifacts involved in creating the invention the Cyberpeople Jack, how the Cyberpeople Jack improves on the past patent designs, and informs the reader that the Worm will now summarize the patent.
Figure 28
A split view sketch is used to show what the mathematician is visualizing spatially and what the cyberpunk is visualizing spatially. The sketch emphasizes by the use of the “thought” bubbles that the images shown are in these individuals “inner space,” in other words, in their minds. The mathematician is shown using a keyboard because most mathematicians know how to write computer code in order to make the computer create the images of the mathematical equations they work with. The cyberpunk lacks these abilities therefore, anything in “this” person’s mind remains trapped there with no other way of expressing “what they mean.” This sketch shows how the Cyberpeople Jack improves on previous patents in allowing the recipient of the bio-jack to output visual/spatial images out of their mind and on to a computer screen. Both the mathematician and the cyberpunk say, “Intuitively, I know “this…” because “this,” the image shown in the sketch, is what is in their minds, but only they know this, not the rest of the world or “outer space.” “Outer space” is the “space” existing outside of his or her own consciousness. This sketch plays with the concepts of “inner space” and “outer space.”
Figure 29
For the first time the reader sees a textbook medical drawing of how the Cyberpeople Jack is connecting within the human body. The purpose is to illustrate how “this” invention will be integrated into the users body and how the bio-jack is designed to produce visual/spatial output from the human mind to a CPU making the human mind the “master” computer and the CPU the “slave” computer. Hence, the technology is finally “working” for the human and not the human “working” for the technology. The cyberpunk says, “Now ‘that’s’ an improvement,” reinforcing the fact that patent 5,265,201 is operating through several computers back and forth to do the work that it does. Each computer becomes a point of failure therefore, the Cyberpeople Jack is an improvement on this previous patent. The sketch is an attempt to impress the reader with the simplicity of “this” invention. Of course, the word simplicity is a misnomer, as “this” invention is anything but simple because it relies on science and technology from many different disciplines and as a result becomes a point of failure in itself as will later be seen.
Figure 30
Rhetorically, figure 30 is complex. First, in the top of the split image is the Lost in Space robot and in the bottom of the split image is the cyberpunk displaying a painting he or she has seen in a gallery and is trying to explain to someone. On a simple level, the robot and the cyberpunk both represent “outer space.” The Lost in Space robot represents “outer space” literally because that is where the robot was. But the "Lost in Space" robot was also lost within its own inner space because of an inherent flaw by the designers. The Lost in Space robot was not only literally lost in space but was also lost within its “own” space. The robot was created according to conventions of the 1960’s. The robot was modeled after human beings but “this” also becomes an error the designers had not thought of. If the robot was to be an advancement it should have had a function like CP3PO where “this” robot could record images in their entirety plus sounds and play them back in a holographic format. I am referring to the message contained within him of the Princess Lea. If the designers of “Lost in Space” robots were really thinking advanced, they would not have built in the inherent flaw of humanism: the inability to convey ideas other than through materialistic forms. The cyberpunk is displaying the image in his or her mind to “outer space” so the cyberpunk feels a sense of relief being able to visually/spatially convey an image in his or her mind or “inner space” to an “outer space,” the computer monitor. The cyberpunk no longer feels “trapped” or “lost in space” attempting to convey his or her idea.
The more complex rhetorical level has to do with the Dali painting chosen. Dali titled “this” painting Geopoliticus Child Watching the Birth of the New Man. The egg is a favorite Dalinian motif, given the duality of its hard exterior and soft interior. Dali links the egg to pre-natal images and the intra-uterine universe, and thus it is a symbol of both hope and love. This was Dali’s purpose. My purpose in using “this” image is to play on the concept of the new man, "man" referring to men and women. The Lost in Space robot constitutes the mid-sixties genre of thinking or “old school” in science fiction. The primary purpose for a robot would be for doing work in an environment harmful to a human being. The robot is easily recreated therefore, dispensable but a human being is not. The new genre of thinking is why not become “cyber” or use technological enhancements in order to improve human beings in ways biology is not. A person equipped with a bio-jack would be a technologically enhanced human being or a “new man.” The recipient of a bio-jack would represent the “new school” of current thinking hence a “new man.” As I said, this is a subtle play and recontextualization and a complex one at that. Only those who recognize the image and know its title might draw the deeper connection between the Dali painting and the Lost in Space robot.
Figure 31
“This” is a split sketch to show the concept of patent 6,931,359 and the concept of the new patent for the Cyberpeople Jack. The sensor jacket shown in the image is quite different than the actual patent but establishes the general idea. The concept of patent 6,931,359 is actually sensors connected to a person’s body through the use of cornstarch paste. I have done several studies for the
Maryland Psychiatric Center located in Spring Grove within the healthy control group and have had to perform various tasks on the computer with such censors attached. I must say that the experience is not pleasurable and that after about 45 minutes all one wants to do is rip those sensors off and scratch.
In the lower half of the screen there is the cyberpunk who says, “How do you spell relief? C-y-b-e-r-p-e-o-p-l-e J-a-c-k.” How do you spell relief” used to be an advertising slogan in the 1970's for Rolaids, an anti-acid over the counter medication. “This” advertising slogan has been recontextualized to reiterate that the Cyberpeople Jack has no need for external sensors. The user’s eyes are the sensors with the user’s brain doing the processing of the image. “This” sketch is meant to impress patent examiner Shipka with the fact that the Cyberpeople Jack eliminates the need to use external sensors to capture visual/spatial data for downloading into a computer. The purpose of breaking up the two words Cyberpeople Jack with hyphens is to simulate spelling the word out. Because this is being done in text and not audio, the only way to convey this message to the reader is through the use of hyphens.
The image the cyberpunk chooses to display on the computer monitor is a Tibetan woman he or she saw while visiting Tibet. I chose a Tibetan woman from my own personal interest in Tibet. Her dress is similar to Indian dress, which is a small part of my own heritage being a small part American Indian. “This” is not just a fascinating picture and person but also the purpose was to impress patent examiner Shipka with the idea that the Cyberpeople Jack is not only for the purpose of producing Fractals or images with people’s minds. The Cyberpeople Jack can faithfully produce and out put to a computer any visual information that people can remember in their minds. In this case the Tibetan woman left a lasting impression on the cyberpunk therefore, the cyberpunk remembers the woman vividly and can rethink of “that” woman such that he or she can reproduce the memory of the image of the Tibetan woman on the computer screen. “This” sketch is used to support the text and to demonstrate the flexibility of “this” artifact.
Figure 32
Figure 32 became an error that I recovered from. The original concept of “this” sketch was to have the cyberpunk sitting at a desk working with his or her computer displaying the Salvador Dali image shown. Behind the cyberpunk, there was supposed to have been a trash can full of various input devices that the cyberpunk had trashed because the Cyberpeople Jack had eliminated the need for such devices.
I didn’t have this concept written on my notes attached to the various slides and “this” idea was in my mind only. I arrived at the
UMBC library late and was rushing against the clock to use the various facilities such as the computer, bandwidth for searching the Internet, MS Word, MS Picture, MS Paint, MS Publisher software, and the public scanner, so in my haste I completely forgot what the original concept of “this” sketch was. The trashcan shown is part of the original concept, but as I mentioned, “this” trashcan was supposed to have been behind the cyberpunk and not a thought bubble. The text bubble was an afterthought, which I considered when I realized that I had made an error in the concept I was following for "this” sketch so the statement changed slightly. The Salvador Dali image is correct and serves a different purpose in “this” sketch, which was part of the original concept.
Placing the trashcan in a thought bubble rhetorically sends a different message. If the trashcan had been behind the cyberpunk as originally planed, this would have said to the reader that the cyberpunk had moved on from the old tried and true technologies of the past and was moving forward into the future with the advant-guard with the “new” artifact: the Cyberpeople Jack.
By placing the trashcan with all the old technologies for computer input in a thought bubble means that the cyberpunk is “thinking” of eliminating the old forms of technology for data input on his or her computer. “This” implies that the cyberpunk is not 100% confident that the “new” Cyberpeople Jack will replace all the old methods of data input and is still clinging to the past until such time that the Cyberpeople Jack proves itself as a technology that will replace the old modes of data entry.
The
Salvador Dali image was specifically intentional in this case. The painting is Dali’s recontextualizion of
Michelangelo’s Statue of David. “This" was decided before the insertion of the Salvador Dali quote. “This” was going to be left as an implied message to the reader. Now with the Salvador Dali quote, the message becomes a little more specific to the reader and the message a little less implied. “Those who do not want to imitate anything produce nothing.” Within the “Shipka Spaces” we discussed “this” very concept more than a few times but to so forwardly. The question is “If one recontextualizes or reiterates intellectual property is this in effect stealing?” This intellectual argument occurs in art quite often. The saying in the art circles is “A good artist is one who steals and gets caught. A great artist is one who steals and never gets caught.” What this is referring to is copying another artist. There is nothing wrong with this. Call it creative plagiarism. Many times we have seen works of art and literature that imitate or even outright refer to other works. How many times have themes in the Bible been referred to and continue to be referred to. In the 1910/20 and 30’s, Paris was a “hot bed” for aspiring artists who would creatively “steal” ideas from each other. These are social clicks and ideas are exchanged freely. Also the idea by one artist can and does inspire the idea of another creative work. The second artist even though imitating the first has different abilities, thinks differently, and visually sees something different creating a new work from the first work. “This” is the work that patents do. Patents take someone else’s idea and tweaks then to improve on the original artifact. This is done in academic papers also but we cite where the original idea came from. We take pieces of other people’s writing and research composing a new work in the name of support: support for our own ideas. This one said this, this one said that, but I, now have “this” to say about what everyone else said and here is a “new angle” on an old argument. Hence no thought is original upon itself. All thoughts are bits and pieces of other people’s thoughts recontextualized, reiterated, and juxtaposed in an effort to recreate something new from something old. Therefore what Dali is saying is that nothing would be accomplished unless we revisited old artifacts
in order to recreate new artifacts. “This” ties together the entire concept of the re-patent communicative objective in a nutshell. “This is also why “this sketch deliberately shows up as the fourth to last sketch in the re-patent artifact. It is the driving force of the entire argument of the concept of the re-patent.
I am not advocating that we should all directly “steal” each other’s work without crediting the originator of the idea. Of course, each person should be “recognized” for their contribution and should also receive monetary compensation for the said concept or artifact. What I am suggesting is that even the “borrowed” concept or artifact is a recontextualization of some other previous concept or artifact and that even the concept or artifact that was “borrowed” was borrowed from someone else previous. What I am suggesting is that one’s person’s intellectualism inspires another’s intellectualism and “this” is the way that we build knowledge. We simply create new knowledge from old knowledge and “this” is how we continue to evolve as social beings.
Figure 33
The reader has seen "this" sketch several times throughout the re-patent narrative/sketch. Figure 33 should rightfully be a conclusion but actually functions as the last transition. The sketch panels ended in an odd number: three out of four. For me rhetorically, “this” creates a problem. As a novelette, the re-patent doesn’t end properly for me or at least it doesn’t feel like an ending. Something is missing. The ending is too dry. Considering “this” is a bleeding edge invention shouldn’t “this” re-patent end differently? “This panel becomes the end of a beginning. I will explain what that rhetorical decision is in discussing Figure 35.
In the mean time, I will discuss the text bubbles in “this” sketch. Originally, Shipka was going to say, “Well… I’m convinced. You will be receiving your “new” patent in the mail in a few days.” The text bubble actually reads, “I’m convinced. You will be receiving your “new” patent in the mail in a few days.” What happened here is that the technology dictated how Shipka’s text bubble would read. How? The size of my ellipse template dictated how much text I could include. The largest ellipse would have brought the text bubble right against the text making the text difficult to read. To make a slightly larger ellipse that was true in shape would not be an easy task. I could have used a circle but that technology dictated what could be said. A circle would create too much white space and overpower the sketch panel. Therefore, I opted to remove “Well….”
“This” feedback from the technology also dictated a different type of rhetoric. If the text had begun with “Well…” this would show hesitation on the part of Shipka the patent examiner. In other words, “this” one word with the ellipse would have meant that Shipka was not completely convinced that The Integral Worm should receive the patent which in my mind would have been more interesting rhetorically. In other words, Shipka’s hesitation to grant the approval of the patent would have meant possibly intuitively, Shipka felt an ominous foreboding which would have played well with the disaster article. Because Shipka is a civil servant it would be unlikely that Shipka would speak to the media about “this” ominous foreboding but it could have acted as a forecast to the reader of an event to come. Instead, Shipka’s text bubble implies that she is 100% certain that The Integral Worm should receive the patent. Also note that the word “new” is placed in quotations. The purpose for this is to indicate to the reader that The Integral Worm is not new to the game of being turned down or granted patents. Companies of “this” nature usually have many patents, some approved and some turned down. “This” is what such companies do. Shipka’s tone is also authoritative and businesslike. There is no emotion involved. “This” is just business as usual.
The Worm’s response I consider interesting. Originally, the Worm was going to say, “Yippie!” After two days of thinking about this I disliked its response. I thought it was rather 50/60ish, sort of like the word “neat.” Somehow, the Worm’s response didn’t fit well with me. I also thought of the Worm saying something comedic like, “I’m jumping for joy! Can’t you tell?” with the Worm standing in the same pose its been standing in. After thinking about “this” response for a few minutes, I felt that “this” response was rather sarcastic and not businesslike, not that the response I used is very businesslike either. Instead of having the Worm respond in a businesslike manner I decided to recontextualize Stimpy’s famous words when he was happy. Stimpy is an extremely red and white cat cartoon character from
Ren and Stimpy. The Integral Worm is a cartoonish looking character so I decided to borrow/steal a response from another cartoon character that “this” audience would probably remember from childhood considering Ren and Stimpy aired in 1991, so in 2006, most of the young adults on campus would have been eleven to fifteen when “this” cartoon debued. This is why I chose the phrase “Oh Joy” for the Worm.
Figure 34
"And so..." in Edwardian font is a lead in for the final page of the re-patent. "This" informs the reader that they must turn the page in order to get to the ending. The reason "this" works is because of the odd number of slides, which allows me to push the reader over to the next page. “And so…” does the same work as the Montey Python's famous,
“And now something completely different...” “And so…” acts as a transition, alerts the reader to turn the page and that the change will be unexpected and abrupt. The Edwardian font provides an “Elitist” feel to the re-patent and maintains a sense of seriousness about the document. The Edwardian font provides the necessary tension for what the reader will find on the next page: the unexpected.
Figure 35
The last sketch the “Party Sketch” is an extremely ambitious sketch therefore, “this” sketch will have an equally ambitious analysis. The analysis will begin in a typical American English reading fashion working from left to right and top to bottom.
Analysis begins with the title because “this” is highest on the page/sketch. Bodoni MT Black font is used to grab the reader’s attention, to announce that “this” sketch is a recounting/rearticulation of a party at a nightclub called “The Worm Hole.” “...the party begins at ‘The Worm Hole.” The font type/style announces to the reader that “this” sketch is play and is in tension with the seriousness of the patent and its ethical implications. The heading informs the reader what “this” sketch panel is; a party. The heading also informs the reader where the cast of characters from within the re-patent are; a nightclub called “The Worm Hole.”
This sketch is play and a parody of several different recontextualizations. The reason for the party is simple. The CEO of “The Integral Worm” has chosen to reward the employees on their hard work on receiving the new patent. An artifact such as “this” had to take years of research and development in order to bring the artifact to the stage of applying for a patent. The CEO is rewarding the employees by allowing them to go out and blow off some steam. This sketch also functions similarly to the ending of National Lampoon’s Animal House by reintroducing the cast of characters. The difference is, I do not inform the reader of the outcomes of the players within the re-patent for I think this is unnecessary and unwarranted. I do not see a work related purpose for extending the characters beyond the party sketch.
The name of the nightclub, “The Worm Hole” does several things. One, from the name of the club one can assume that “this” night club is not an upscale or posh club but is rather run down and urban. “This” would be typical of many clubs the youthful avant-guard would be accustomed to socializing in. In other words, “this” club caters to an Alternative Music clientele hence its name. One purpose of the name is to connect back to Alternative Music Punk Rock roots. Second, the name plays with the idea that the second central character in the re-patent narrative-sketch, the Integral Worm, the company logo, is in fact a worm, which has been said previously. The title of the club plays off this fact and parodies the worm: after all, a worm is not going to feel at home in posh or “upscale” surroundings but rather a seedy, run-down nightclub with more of an urban feel.
Moving from the title to the upper left-hand corner, the first text the reader encounters is written on the speaker towers: “A Speaker. A Speaker. And now…” First, this is a recontextualization of Monty Python’s
episode of "How to recognize different types of trees from quite a long way away," where in “this” episode frames keep switching back to a slide projector showing trees and identifying them by name, but also by repeating the name twice. My purpose is to parody education in the sense that traditional education believes that the way to educate is through repetition and redundancy and that “this” method produces a better learner. Anyone who has some familiarity with technology would immediately recognize that the two boxes with circles are speakers or technology for the purpose of reproducing sound. But what if one was not familiar with “this” technological artifact? Would placing a label on the artifact for the purpose of informing the reader that “this” is a speaker inform the reader as to what a speaker is? For anyone familiar with technology I could have placed the label “speaker” in any other language and a reader who was familiar with “this” artifact would assume the label reads, “speaker.” But does placing a label on an object really inform the reader as to what that object is and what function it performs?
In other words, science textbooks show us a cutaway view let’s say of a frog but does “this” really describe to the viewer what a frog looks like inside. It is not until one is in the lab dissecting a frog that one really understands what a frog is. Now returning the focus back to the speaker, for someone who is not familiar with a speaker, showing them a picture of a speaker with an identifying label on it is not really helpful in learning what a speaker is. One has to experience a speaker, especially a tower of speakers. One would find out that a speaker is not only is a technological artifact for the purpose of reproducing sound but also that a speaker tower in a nightclub produces shock waves that cause solid objects to vibrate. Hence with a tower of speakers, the listener not only hears sound but feels sound which is a completely different experience from seeing a picture of an artifact with a label underneath it. This idea plays with the entire concept of the work the first communicative objective does. The purpose is to com-mun-i-cate in as many modes and mediums as possible in order for the designer, myself to convey my meaning to the reader/viewer though modes other than text.
The “and now…” recontextualized from Monty Python performs the same function as it did for Monty Python: It is a transition that is less abrupt than just changing to the next scene or paragraph. Here it also parodies a function Monty Python used it for. For those who are familiar with the transition know the correct phrase is “and now for something completely different….” I am relying on the reader’s familiarity with Monty Python such that the reader’s mind will “fill in” the missing text and look to the right where the reader sees the Cyberpunk. The Cyberpunk representing the “something different.”
The implication to the viewer is that the Cyberpunk is diving off the top of the speaker tower; a recontextualization of
"stage diving." “This” is a popular activity in alternative nightclubs where people dive off a stage into a crowd expecting the crowd to catch them. The reader does not see the outcome of the Cyberpunk’s “speaker diving” attempt but “this” dive does play with a commercial made some years ago where a young man performs such a stunt but no one catches him. The “speaker dive” here in “this” sketch depends on the viewer having seen this commercial and remembering its outcome. Therefore, the Cyberpunk jumping off the top of the speaker tower parodies the commercial and the act of “stage diving.” The Cyberpunk shouts, “Kalabunga Dude” which is similar to the phrase “Geronimo” when someone jumps out of a plane. Because the Cyberpunk is advant-guard he or she is not going to shout such a cliche phrase therefore, this is why he or she shouts “Kalabunga Dude.”
The text next to the left-hand speaker is the lyrics from the record DJ Shipka is playing. “This” is a partial lyric from an obscure Hip-Hop record from 1982, when Hip Hop or “Urban Contempt” was in its infancy. This genre is now known as “Old School Hip Hop.” The record being played is “Get Up” by the Furious Five published on Sugar Hill records, before they teamed up with Grand Master Flash. Only hard core rappers would recognize “this” recontextualization. “This” may not be understood, but “this” also plays with Sensor Man in the center of the dance floor which I will describe the relation when discussing Sensor Man.
Shipka, the Patent Examiner is now DJ Shipka who is not only the central character to the re-patent narrative but also the central character to the party. Shipka has been placed in a position of power and authority for several reasons. First, she is the professor of ENGL 324 therefore in a position of power as an administrator. But Shipka is also parodied in the re-patent because Shipka also functions as a co-peer within the “Shipka Spaces.” In other words, Shipka is a peer in the learning process as learning is a social process. Shipka, the Patent Examiner is the primary character because she decides whether The Integral Worm receives a patent or not. This places Shipka in the position of power. In addition, without Shipka there would be no patent. DJ Shipka is in a position of power deciding what music will be played or not played therefore, Shipka controls or directs the outcome of the party experience through sound. Shipka is not smiling because she is concentrating on the sound within her headphone searching for the perfect groove in the record to recontextualize the sound from one piece of vinyl to the other. For anyone who is familiar with the process of DJ-ing knows “this” is part art and part science. Many hours of practice go into researching and recontextualizing vinyl on two turntables and DJ’s are always in search of the “perfect beat,” therefore her grimace conveys to the viewer that “this is work.”
The Professor is attempting to get DJ Shipka’s attention to play a request, which is typical in nightclubs. The statement, “DJ, DJ… play ‘this’” parodies Shipka’s use of the word “this” in quotation marks from her assignment “The History of ‘this’ Space," where “this” refers to whatever the designer decides “this” is.
The note being passed is a nod and a wink between Shipka and I and yet another recontextualization. “This” note in one way says, “I have continued my studies since leaving your classes in the work that “we” do and have read At Play in the Fields of Writing: A Serio-Ludic Rhetoric by Albert Rouzie. The word
serio-ludic is a remanufactured lexicon from the words “serious” and “ludicrous,” ludicrous referring to “play” and how “play” can be used to perform serious work. The book is an analysis of adult play theory.
The music request and the book title are being used to parody the absurd titles that were typical of the post-punk music genre. Many song titles and group names at this time were deliberately chosen for the primary purpose of creating confusion and for the purpose of shock value. One such title and group name was “I Am a Person and that is Enough” by Oh-Ok. “This” was an obvious play and recontextualization of a conversation between a man and a woman. The man probably made some stupid remark and the woman’s response was “I am a person and that is enough.” The man who was quickly put in his place by the woman’s snap reaction most likely said, “Oh-Ok” when he backed down. Therefore, “this” is why this particular
book title was chosen and recontextualized to simulate the work being performed by the sketch. This recontextualization also “plays” well with the central theme of the party within the nightclub.
There is another subtle subconscious play here, which I mentioned in sketch number 23. My subconscious may have taken over in drawing sketch panel number 23. This was an unintentional recontextualization in which my subconscious may have been trying to convey to the reader and myself what those first few weeks within “Shipka Spaces” was like with my three Writing Tutor peers. Pursuing this “thinking,” the Professor handing DJ Shipka the request is Shipka herself. This becomes a parody in itself because why would one request one’s self to play something on the turntables if one was the DJ? They wouldn’t and the DJ would play what the DJ wanted to hear unless… the DJ was not in the position of power. One is only in a position of power when one behaves as though one is in power. Being assigned “Authority” does not necessarily place one in a position of power. Rather how others react to that person in a social context is what assigns or removes power from that person in a position of authority. In other words, if those interacting with that said person assign the said person power, then the authority figure has power or the power figure only has as much power as those around them are willing to give them. Hence, if Professor Shipka is passing a music request to DJ Shipka, Shipka is in a process of social negotiation with herself therefore, Shipka becomes a co-peer negotiating meaning within “this” space-the nightclub and the re-patent. This statement in itself also becomes an extended parody of the “Shipka Spaces” where Shipka finds herself negotiating with us as students as to what “things” mean, not only to us as peers but to herself. Hence meaning and meaning-making is a negotiation process within a social context and to understand the meaning being made, one must understand the social context the meaning is being made in. “This” also plays with the Socratic process of oral dialog playing with the concept of “This is what ‘this’ means to me, what does ‘this’ mean to you?”.
On the top right, there is the right speaker tower with the words “woof” and “tweet.” This plays with naming conventions used by engineers in technology. Sound engineers have named large speakers “woofers” for their ability to reproduce sounds within the lower audio hertz range and smaller speakers “tweeters” for their ability to reproduce sounds within the upper audio hertz range. “Tweet” and “Woof” play with the naming conventions of these artifacts. Hence “What does a woofer say? A woofer says ‘woof.’ What does a tweeter say; a tweeter says ‘tweet.’” This description is also playing with the dialog of Einstein, the parrot who says, “What does a dog say? A dog says “woof.”
Moving to the left once again, the viewer finds the Mathematician who was seen in several sketches. Here he is dancing and shouts “Science!” This parodies the Thomas Dolby video “She Blinded Me with Science” where the old guy in a white lab coat ever so often shouts, “Science” within the video. The Thomas Dolby song was also part of the era that Break Dancing, Hip-Hop, Post-Punk emerged on the club scene.
Next, Abstract Man is shown saying “Pickin’ up Change.” Note that there are no quotation marks around what Abstract Man has said and that Change is spelled with a capital “C.” This is once again a subtle play that few viewers will understand because this comes from an obscure part of pop culture the “Punk” generation and not “Post-Punk. This is a recontextualization of a PBS documentary analyzing the dances of the “Punk” generation. As with “this” work here being done in the re-patent, the viewer becomes confused and thinks that “this” is a random process but as one reads Goals and Choices one finds out that “this” process is anything but random and is a carefully, purposefully designed process in communication. The “Punk” dances were also carefully designed and engineered moves in dance and not random gyrations when one observed and allowed the “punks” to explain the moves to the dances. “Pickin’ up change” was a dance where the dancer bent over and would reach down to the floor with their hand, alternating hands, and bring them up to their chest simulating the act of picking up change that had fallen out of one’s pocket. Pocket change for a punk would be quite valuable because “Punk Music” was a celebration of being not only being urban but also of being poor or “underprivileged,” hence the reason why pocket change would be valuable. But as I said, note that the word “change” is spelt with a capital “C”. Here Abstract Man is not referring to pocket change but to Technological Change and Evolutionary Change. “This” is meant as a striking statement. Abstract Man is saying in three words that the granting of the patent for the Cyberpeople Jack is ushering in a new era of Technological Change and Evolutionary Change in Human Beings. The Cyberpeople Jack is ushering in the first of many artifacts that will lead to
cyberization or mechanized human beings.
The Integral Worm is also dancing and doing yet another "Punk Era Dance"
known as
"Doing the Worm."
The dancer would fall on the floor and being to wiggle on the floor intimating the motion of a worm. Consciously, I was playing with a recontextualization of “this” dance but another meaning can be construed from the Worm and his motion: A meaning that was not intended but could be drawn from the Worm’s form of dance. In the disaster article a person on the streets of Baltimore witnesses one of the recipients of the Cyberpeople Jack collapsing in the street and thinks the person in distress is having an epileptic seizure. This was not intentional but rhetorically this does work as a dark foreboding of events that will occur in the disaster article. The seriousness of this sets the party sketch in tension with seriousness and ludicrousness or play which is the primary work that this sketch does.
After the Worm, the reader encounters the “Lost in Space” robot who says, “’This does not compute. Please explain, only humans can explain.” This quote is actually two quotes recontextualized into one copied from “Star Trek.” In the episode,
The Changeling, “Nomad” an Earth designed satellite crashes with an alien satellite and reengineers itself in order to survive. This is where the phrase
“This does not compute” comes from. The second sentence, also copied from “Star Trek,” is from the
I, Mudd episode, where Harry Mudd is a designer of androids and in order for crew members of the Enterprise to escape, they play illogical physical games and word games in order to confuse the androids. Here “this” is not refering to the party within the nightclub or the act of humans having fun in order to blow off steam, but is referring to the entire sketch drawing of the party sketch. In other words, the recontextualizations, juxtapositions, and connections being made from one artifact, person, and text to the next are so complex the robot cannot make sense of the meanings being conveyed within “this” sketch. Only the synapses of the human mind can make such complex and subtle associations drawing meaning from the sketch. This is why the robot makes the request for a human to explain “this” sketch to it. This also plays with the fact that the robot is lost in space. The robot is now lost in the space of "this" sketch because it cannot understand the logic or the work that “this” sketch is performing, hence the robot is truly lost in space.
Salvador Dali himself appears and creates seriousness within the party sketch placing the sketch in serio-ludic tension. Dali quotes himself with the sentence, “Those who do not want to imitate anything, produce nothing.” Salvador Dali is a strange looking dude to begin with which places the sketch in tension. “This” quote does specific work and has been recontextualized to place emphasis where I want emphasis. “This” quote is normally seen as a string but I have broken up the sentence into a poetic format for a purpose and that purpose is emphasis particular words and to create a particular rhythm to the sentence.
First, there is the emphasis on “Those who” leading to “do not” presented in bold font. By only having the two words “Those who” forces the readers eyes to focus and linger on those words for a moment. If this was being spoken by a narrator or orator, one can hear the pause for emphasis. “Do not” emphasizes the “not” in the sentence. “Want” is deliberately separated from the rest of the string to demonstrate that there is a conscious choice versus the use of the word “need” which would mean “this is necessary.” Necessity does not necessarily lead to a choice, but “want” always leads to a choice: One choice chosen and one not chosen. “To” is separated out and displayed individually to over-emphasize the fact that one can do “this” or one can do “that” or choose not do “this” or "that." “Imitate” is in bold for beat and over-emphasis demonstrating that the word “steal” would work just as well as the word “imitate.” “Anything is in italics to show that the word “anything” used here means an artifact, an idea, a concept, a thought… anything means absolutely anything and that no relatives exist. “Produce” is over-emphasized with the bold face font that this is human kind’s highest achievement: to produce a “something,” and that the only creature on the planet that produces a “something” is human kind. If we produced nothing, we would do what animals do which is live off of what is already made by nature without the interference of technology. “Nothing” is in italics to make the word stand out. Note that “anything” and “nothing” are the words chosen to place in italics which forms a rhythm on these words.
Dali’s quote is chosen to emphasis the point that “this” re-patent and the entire patent itself is an imitation of many different genres, modes, mediums, and recontextualizations of other people’s words, thoughts, and images creating an entirely new discourse. Dali chose in his own works to imitate many other artists styles in order to create his own style. My parents, who were both artists said, “A good artist steals others works, a great artist doesn’t get caught.” Both Dali and my parents in different words are saying the same thing; that one must learn to creatively steal or imitate others works in order to produce anything of value. Everything is a recontextualization of some previous work. We constantly build new knowledge from existing knowledge.
Considering that so many of Dali’s works of art were used, I felt that it was only appropriate to imitate the great master by presenting his image in my work as he had done in many of his own works.
Next are the two bio-lab technicians. Lab Tech 2 is still playing with the nerve bundles. Do to imaging problems it was not possible to make the genetically engineered nerve bundles in neon colors therefore, “this” is explained in text form only. Evidently, Lab Tech 2 injected the genetically engineered nerve bundles with some phosphorescent dye in order to make them glow in the dark of the nightclub and is wearing them as a fashion statement. Lab Tech 2 announces that Sensor Man is break dancing, which is a misinterpretation of what Sensor Man is actually doing: trying to get out of the Sensor Jacket in order to relieve the itching sensation created by the corn starch used to attach the sensors. Lab Tech 2 assumes Sensor Man is
breakdancing
because he is spinning on his shoulder and the type of music DJ Shipka is playing is old school Hip-Hop/Scratch/Urban Contempt. Sensor Man is actually spinning on his shoulder in order to reduce some of the scratchiness of the jacket. Lab Tech 2’s statement plays with the lyrics that are coming out of the left speaker, “I don’t need cardboard for my shoulder spins,” meaning that “I’m tough enough and good enough not to need technological enhancements. “S-C-R-A-T-C-H” is the next sound that is heard on “this” 12” record called “Get Up”
by the Furious Five. “This” is a direct quotation from the piece of vinyl but sets up serio-ludic tension between Lab Tech 2, Sensor Man, and patent number 6,931,359 while playing with the word “scratch” as the act of scratching an itch and scratching on vinyl to produce a sound for the purpose of producing a rhythm. "Breakdansen" is placed in italics to emphasize the words.
The peculiarity of the spelling of “dansen” is a recontextualization of the spelling of a group from the Post-Punk genre who called themselves the
Danse Society. The reason for “this” spelling by the Danse Society was to emphasize the group’s Danish heritage playing with the word “Danes” but also to separate them from being part of the top forty dance culture placing them in the Alternative Genre. Their best known song
“We Came to Dance” was a dark and dismal look back to the dance marathon contests of the early thirties during the depression. People danced at dance marathons in the hopes of winning the prize so they could eat the next day. These were not dances for joy or entertainment but dances for survival (See the movie "They Shoot Horses Don't They" 1969). Sensor Man is not break dancing for fun but for the purpose of scratching an itch and the hope of escaping from the jacket.
Lab Tech 1 turns to Lab Tech 2 as the pair are dancing and says, “You’re still a jerk.” Lab Tech 1 being a young woman lacking the ability to com-mun-i-cate what she really means is in essence telling Lab Tech 2 that no matter what he does, she’s not interested in him because she sees him as an immature male who would make an unsuitable husband and father. In other words, Lab Tech 1 is saying what she means in a subtle way but Lab Tech 2 is not receiving the com-mun-i-cation. The word “still” is in italics to infer that because Lab Tech 1 has chosen to dance with Lab Tech 2, "do not infer that anything in our working relationship has changed with each other. I still think and feel the same way about you and “this” is merely adult play time."
Sensor Man becomes a key figure of the party sketch and this is why he has been placed at the center. Sensor Man sets the entire sketch in serio-ludic tension. He says, "all 'this' scratching is making me itch" which has been partially recontextualized from the lyrics of the Beastie Boys single Cookie Puss. The words in the song have been recontextualized because the original words were deemed lude and inappropriate. Everyone at the party seems to think Sensor Man is poking fun at the music being played and is referring to the vinyl scratching DJ Shipka is performing on the turntables. “This” is not the case. Sensor Man is speaking about the itching the design of patent number 6,931,359 is giving him from the corn starch used to attach the external sensors to his body. Sensor Man is shown thinking to himself, “Must remove the JACKET!” with the word “JACKET” accented in bold face font. “This” is playing off the bad acting of William Shatner from Star Trek. Shatner’s bad acting and statements like this have been caricatured for years so this is obviously play. The serious part is no one understands that Sensor Man cannot remove the jacket and he is going crazy trying to remove it in order to stop the itch.
The Dancing Monitor represents one of the many monitors shown throughout the patent displaying Salvador Dali images representing images the Cyberpunk was visualizing while demonstrating the Cyberpeople Jack. Even though the monitors are artifacts, in “this” patent, the monitors have become characters or entities for the purpose of setting a serio-ludic tension between man and machine or man and his technology. Once the line of man and machine has been crossed there becomes a blurring of the lines and a point of no return. Hence, when man becomes more machine-like and machine becomes more human-like what becomes the dividing aspect distinguishing between the two?
Here the Salvador Dali image is of importance. “This”
recontextualization of Adam and the “Touch of God” refers back to what Dali had said in his quote about imitation. Many of Dali’s works were imitations of other great masters’ works. Dali did nothing to cover up this fact. This becomes a case of one great work inspiring another. This demonstrates that no one particular thought is ever original but a recontextualization of a previous thought which has been built upon with new knowledge. This is also the reason why Dali and his painting are shown in direct center on the left and the right of the page: To set up a particular seriousness to the party sketch and to make “this” particular statement. The Re-patent Narrative Sketch and the patent artifact itself are both re-designs, recontextualizations, and re-engineering of someone else’s previous works, inventions, and ideas.
The Master and Slave Computer are shown in the lower left corner of the sketch from patent number 5,265,201 and are also used as characters within the re-patent. These are ludicrous and play because the wave marks around the master CPU and the Slave CPU convey to the reader that the computers are dancing in place. The two computers are singing a Post Punk genre song named
Make a Circuit with Me by the group known as the Polecats, which is actually considered to be
"Rockabilly Music." Only the Master Computer recites the correct lyrics. The Slave Computer lyrics have been recontextualized for the purpose of humoring Electrical/Electronic, Computer Science, and Computer Engineers. These people would recognize the terminology of AND gates, OR gates, NOR gates, and so on. These invented lyrics still simulate the rhythmic beat of the Polecats song chorus, “I'll be a diode, cathode, electrode, overload, generator, oscillator....”
The relationship between the Master/Slave computer arrangement and the song lyrics is actually more complex. In the song, a female vocalist sings all the lyrics except diode, cathode, electrode, overload, generator, oscillator,” the men chant these words in unison with her as she sings them therefore, the female vocalist is in the lead or the master and the men are followers or in a position of submission. The female vocalist completes the chorus with “Make a circuit with me.” Hence the Master Computer and the Slave Computer are playing out the same rhetoric that is sung in the song.
The Four Students are next for the viewer’s eyes. As I said earlier this could be a sub-conscious choice to recontextualize myself and my three Writing Center Tutor peers within the re-patent. Once again, the four chant, “I dunno!” as this was what my peers said every day as they tried to create meaning-making of the pedagogy being applied within the “Shipka Spaces.” I understood quickly what was going on and extended my reading into other areas beyond what was expected for the class. “This” is why the student with the snake eyes says to himself, “I do!” meaning "I do understand." Many times, I expressed this to my peers but they didn’t seem to understand the explanations or it could be that they were enjoying the challenge of figuring out Shipka's pedagogy for themselves. The reason the Four Students are line-dancing is because many times within the class, especially when we had to sit in a conference formation--a circle, we would be at the front of the class and felt like an interviewing panel or “us” against “other.” In my mind, this action or arrangement was never intentional. This happened because of personal seating preferences. Naphtali has trouble hearing, so he sits near the front of the class. I sit near the front of the class because I have difficulty seeing the board and hearing. As for my other two peers, I never asked, one graduated so I’ll never why he sat at the front of the class, and the other I may not see again either.
Last, but certainly not least is me in the lower right hand corner. “Sick, but social” is a recontextualization from the movie
The Breakfast Club. This is actually myself making fun of myself. Rhetorically speaking I guess this could be considered “playing with myself.” This is a pun and a bad one at that. There are several rhetorical moves here. One, is a recontextualization of “Killroy was here!” because I am holding a sign with my name on it. The theme of “Killroy was here!” was one of the plans that was thrown out for Communicative Objective 2, "The Three Bruces: The official UMBC take out food connoisseurs." The intent was to recontextualize a narrative from a collection of take out food menus from around the Catonsville/Arbutus area and each menu was going to have a differently drawn “Bruce/Killroy” holding the menu.
Second, the rhetorical purpose in using my own name for the CEO was to legally cover myself in the disaster story. I am of the belief that it is highly probable that whatever fictitious name I design for the CEO of the company that there is the likelihood that someone, somewhere would have the same name and would "think" I used their good name for the person in the disaster story. Because of the grave implications in the disaster story, I thought it was best to use my own name to avoid legal implications.
Third, “Sick, but social” serves another purpose. “Sick, but social” refers to the entire patent and the process of creating the patent. This becomes an experiment in a concept revolving around the Science Fiction genre. The entire project became a social negotiation for meaning-making across several modes of communication. I found myself constantly asking myself and my peers “Does 'this' work?” Do you understand what I am saying? What happens if I breathe life into 'this'? What are the consequences of “blind ambition? What happens when scientists are allowed to operate without morality or not forced to consider the ethical implications of their inventions and discoveries?” The entire patent becomes an exploration of the self versus humanity.
Last, "this" is an imitation of Salvador Dali, as Dali placed himself in many of his works of art. This also serves to sign the work of art so in a sense placing myself at the bottom of the sketch signals this is the end of the sketch panel, the end of the Re-patent Narrative-Sketch and “this” is my signature as a designer of “this” Communicative Objective.
What are the rhetorical choices in the "Cast of Characters"?
Abstract Man
There are no rhetorical decisions for this minor character. Abstract Man simply introduces the Re-Patent Narrative-Sketch. Abstract Man has a Cyberpeople Jack and is demonstrating its versatility by thinking of the abstract he intends to write and by thinking, the abstract is produced on the screen in text format.
P. Christopher Paulsen, Inventor and CEO/CIO of “The Integral Worm”
Placing myself in the Re-Patent Narrative-Sketch autographs the re-patent similarly to the way that Salvador Dali autographed many of his works. Second because of the outcome of the disaster story, I decided that it was best to use my own name as the CEO/CIO of The Integral Worm in order to avoid any legal implications that may occur in using someone else’s name. Even in an attempt to invent a name there is always the likely possibility that there is someone who exists that has a similar name. Third, I used my own name because I am the CEO/CIO of my own company with the same name. Last, even though I was attempting to not create stereotypical gender roles throughout the re-patent, the roles became stereotypical. The CEO is a white, middle-aged male of Western European decent, which is a stereotype of CEO's in most American corporations. These may have been sub-conscious choices that crept in unintentionally.
Shipka, the Primary Patent Examiner
Shipka cast in the role of the Patent Examiner becomes an interesting decision. As the professor of ENGL 324 and an administrator, it made sense to cast Shipka in another administrative role. On the other hand, most of us consider Shipka as a co-peer within the “Shipka Spaces” because many times, Shipka participates in discussions and activities as a peer negotiating meaning with us and us with her. Therefore, it seems logical to cast Shipka in the role of the Primary Patent Examiner.
Gender-wise, Shipka is in a stereotypical gender role as a professor of English. Cast in the position of the Patent Examiner is a non-stereotypical role. In order to be a patent examiner, one must have a Bachelor’s degree in Engineering, Mathematics or Computer Science. Women are minorities in these fields so casting Shipka in the role of the patent examiner breaks a stereotype.
The Integral Worm (the company logo)
The Integral Worm becomes a peculiarity to the re-patent. The Worm is a company logo which sets up a serio-ludic rhetoric where Shipka, the Patent Examiner finds herself speaking not only to a company logo as the spokesperson but a worm of all things.
The Worm is actually an initiation of a caricature figure an old friend by the name of Bruce Gordon used to draw. The name has remained the same, “The Integral Worm.” This was actually a caricature of Bruce Gordon himself. The distinguishing feature that represented Gordon was the eyes of the worm. Gordon loved doing Integral Calculus and to him the integral symbol looked like a worm. He was also a math tutor and when a tutee encountered a particularly stubborn integral, he would say, “You have to chase the integral worm through his borough and force him out into the light in order to recognize his form. This explains “The Integral Worm” company logo.
My plan was to have Shipka, the Patent Examiner, speak with the worm deliberately to set up a serio-ludic tension within the re-patent in order to argue the position of why does science have to speak from such a dry position that few people understand. My new genre is a form of edutainment where the reader learns about previous inventions and new inventions in a way that not only informs but entertains the reader/viewer.
The Cyberpunk
The Cyberpunk is deliberately portrayed as genderless. This seems to be the way society wants to head: into a society where gender is unimportant. What is important is information and the resources of the human mind. But that is not to say an “individual’s mind” but a “collective mind,” the combined thoughts of many individuals sharing old information and creating new information.
The Cyberpunk has a Mohawk haircut to impress society with the fact that this person is part of the advant-guard and is willing to use cutting edge technology in order to move society forward. This is typical of the younger generation. The younger generation is usually more willing to take risks because they have less experience with consequences. It usually takes a few close-calls before one realizes that one is not immortal and that every action has a consequence whether positive or negative. One must think through possible consequences before acting. The Cyberpunk becomes a central character because he/she is willing to push the envelope of technology with little regard of the consequences.
The Cyberpunk is juxtaposed with the Mathematician to represent “old school” and “new school” thinking of how to input to a computer. The Mathematician represents old school in the sense that he uses programming, keyboards, mice and other various devises to input information into the computer for analysis. The Cyberpunk represents “new school” suggesting, “why don’t we just ‘think’ the information in.”
The Two Surgeons
The Two Surgeons are comic relief in the re-patent and play a minor role. Everyone knows when a doctor or nurse tells one “This won’t hurt a bit,” it’s going to hurt like Hell so be ready to bite the bullet. This patent is so shocking and so far on the edge some levity needs to be used in order to reign the project in.
The Bio-genetics Lab Technician 1 (Male) and 2 (Female)
Lab Technician 1 maintains the serio-ludic tension by wiggling the bio-genetically engineered nerve bundles in an attempt to scare Lab Technician 2. His behavior is a stereotypical role as most young males behave with less maturity than the women in their age group. Once again, both characters demonstrate no thought of the ethical implications of the research they are performing.
His statement “It’s alive, Alive” recontextualizes the words shouted by Dr. Frankenstein in the movie “Frankenstein” when his creation began to stir to life. Using the male lab tech for this purpose works well because of his lack of maturity and because this acts as a foreboding for events that will occur in the disaster story. Lab Technician 1 acts as a rooster or an alarm alerting the reader/viewer that something disastrous will occur. The statement by Lab Tech 1 relies on the viewer/reader having read Mary Shelly’s Frankenstein and knowing the outcome of the story. Lab Tech 1 sets up the thought in the reader’s mind to consider carefully “Who is the monster?” once the Disaster newswire unfolds.
In terms of comedy, Lab Tech 1 is the comedian and Lab Tech 2 is the straight man playing the part of the foil for the comic partner.
The Cricket
The Cricket is less of a character and more of a rhetorical device in order to make the reader/viewer experience the tension that occurred in the room while workshopping the patent. To describe the tension that was felt during the workshopping sessions becomes difficult. Sketching the cricket with the increasing sound of his chirping, Shipka, the Patent Examiner with her mouth wide open and the Worm standing there with his wry grin says more quite simply than lines of text ever could. Here, the visual does more effective work than text ever could hence, “A picture is worth a thousand words.” Once again, the Cricket performs the work of setting up serio-ludic tension within the re-patent.
The Mathematician
This character is a deliberate stereotypical role so the reader/viewer will easily recognize the character and make inferences within their own mind. Representing the Mathematician as an aging male with a bald head, with hair on the sides, and eyeglasses makes him easily recognizable as a science stereotype. This also makes this character a representation of old school thinking of how to input information into the computer. The Mathematician is deliberately placed next to the Cyberpunk to distinguish the difference in thinking between old school and new school as far as inputting information into the computer.
The Computer Instructor/Professor
I attempted to make the Professor a less stereotypical role because I was trying to make most of the characters less stereotypical throughout the patent. Even with this conscious attempt, stereotypical roles still crept in. There are more men who have studied Computer Science and Information systems than women therefore, there are more male professors than female professors. This was a conscious choice to place a woman in the role of the Computer Instructor.
In this sketch, space dictated how many students I could represent within the classroom therefore, this is why there are only four shown. Looking at the sketch after it was created it appears that the subconscious took over and that this sketch may be a re-representation conveying how it felt to be within the “Shipka Spaces” the first few days. Subconsciously the Professor may be Shipka, the English professor.
The Four Students
The Four Students being male is a stereotype representing the fact that men outweigh women enrolling in computer instruction courses, yet women outweigh men in enrolling in college.
The response from the Four Students is stereotypical within a
classroom setting. Many times, students cannot see ways of applying what they learn within the classroom to a “real world” setting. Hence, the learning becomes learning for the sake of obtaining a grade. This is not a criticism of teachers for many attempt to demonstrate how concepts apply in the “real world” but become a criticism of the educational institutional system itself. Educational administrators loose focus on the intent of education and become more focused on the economic factors in running the institution. Without communication with the “outside world” educational institutions become separated from the changes occurring in the outside world. The students say, I don’t get it” not because they do not understand the methods being taught but because they cannot understand how to apply “this” outside of the classroom. This is quite stereotypical of the relationships between students, education, and the “real world.”
The Master and Slave Computer
Casting the two computers discussed in patent number 5,265,201 allows me to inject play into the Re-patent Narrative Sketch. The purpose of the Master and Slave Computers are to add some levity to an extremely tense topic. The Master and Slave Computers are minor characters in the narrative-sketch.
Salvador Dali and his works of art
I chose Salvador Dali from the surrealist artists because I am most familiar with him, his works are the most recognized of this period of art, and because he was the most visible and vocal of the artists of the period other than Picasso who is really considered an “abstract” artist.
Dali’ quotations support my work in recontextualizing many texts and images within the re-patent and the patent itself. Using Dali’s artwork allows me to support the fact that the Cyberpunk is part of the advant-guard and that it is “this” group that is most likely to gravitate towards using the Cyberpeople Jack artifact.
The “Lost in Space” robot
There are several other “famous” robots I could have used here such as
"Robbie the Robot” from the 1950’s movie, Forbidden Planet or
C3PO (left) and R2D2 (right) from Star Wars but these robots would not have allowed me to do the same work as using the
Lost in Space robot. The Lost in Space robot allows me to play with the ideas of space and being lost within a space or not being able to escape that said space.
Sensor Man
Sensor Man is another rhetorical device that allows me to inject play and levity in the re-patent. Sensor Man represents the problems that are associated with patent number 6,931,359 in connecting external sensors to the human body for input into a computer. Sensor Man allows me to demonstrate the ridiculousness of these sensors and to push the advantages of the Cyberpeople Jack.
Why are there so many different mediums being used in the sketches?
I keep switching mediums in the sketches because I am trying to reduce smudging in the sketches, I am trying to make text that is readable on the web, and I am using color images on the computer monitors to make them look more realistic.
On simple lines, such as breaking up a sheet of paper into four cells, I use black ink. I also use the ink in areas that are not difficult to draw. The only reason for this is to reduce the amount of pencil lead I lay down in order to keep the sketches clean looking and to prevent smudging.
In places where text is required in the images I am typing them up on the computer and pasting them in the cell. I found from the process sketches I have done for the other communicative objectives that the text looks horrible and is difficult to read when scanned. If I could afford a drawing tablet I would use one. I can’t afford a tablet, so I have to hand draw everything and scan. I am hoping the scanned text will be easier to read.
I am only using color images I have downloaded from various places for the computer monitors to act as demonstrations of what this technology is meant to do. The color images are being used as a form communication to present the reader with the capabilities of this invention.
In the end black ink won out over lead in "this" artifact. Normally, I prefer working in lead because I can erase. The problem with using lead is dragging the lead around the page which makes the sketches dirty and smudged. At an early stage of "this" artifact, I switched from lead to black ink because I found it was easier to create layout lines in number 6 pencil lead and then ink in the actual lines of the sketches. This prevented the artifact from becoming too dirty as more drawing and cutting and pasting was done.
Why is the re-patent document in a ½ inch three ring binder?
The Re-patent becomes an artifact that the viewer can page through without damaging the document. The document becomes fragile because all of the sketches consist cutting and pasting plus hand drawing. The binder and the clear viewing sleeves protect the document. In addition the plastic sleeves allow me to manipulate the document quickly when making changes.
Why is the re-patent document narrative printed in Landscape versus Portrait orientation?
Due to the size of the images I find it easier to draw in Landscape orientation than in Portrait. I can convey more in Landscape than in Portrait orientation and feel confined drawing in Portrait orientation. Therefore, in order to prevent the viewer/reader from having to turn the Re-patent from Portrait to Landscape orientation, the entire document was laid out in Landscape orientation.
Why newswires for advertising?
Being given this much "space" in the assignment sets me up in a position to write an international news-wire explaining the device and deliver it as revolutionary technology to the general public. Journalism and journalistic writing is not my best genre of writing (at least according to Ken Wiess, Associate Editor of
Patuxent Publishing Company (who has since then been bought out by the Baltimore Sun) gave me a "C" in his Introduction to Journalism class) but it does do work that no other form of writing will do: the international news-wire creates the largest possible audience: Humanity. What is more public than an international news-wire? The two newswires do work that is impossible by any other genre. The newswires opens a "space" for a public world argument in ethics. The newsletter sets up the patent for a larger than life advertisement and a larger than life disaster. The article basically brags about pushing the envelope of technology. The genre allows me to publicly announce that we have done this on test subjects and the company has received the patent. This permits me to put the technology on a pedestal way up into the air and on the counterpoint, it permits me to knock the technology off its pedestal and hear it come down with a tremendous crash.
The counter argument allows me to write an international news-wire disaster article on the same technology and also illustrates what happens when ambition has a higher value than the ethical implications of the technology being invented. The international newswires place the entire argument of pushing for advancements in science and technology and the cost of humanity right out in front of the entire world, where it should be placed. Where does the fine line exist between advancing science and technology versus playing God? When is enough too much? Who decides how far we should advance in science and technology, the scientists, the general public, the politicians, special organizations set up to monitor such research? Who do we trust with such power? How many people are enough to make the decision for all humanity and who should wield such power? Scientists are an elitist group as not everyone can do science, therefore who should rein them in or should we rein them in?
The ethical implications of practicing science and technology is something scientists and technologists have to think about on a regular basis because all science and technology always, always has ethical, legal, plus life and death implications. By making
The Integral Worm a public company also places greater pressures on the company and humanity to consider the implications of forging ahead for the sake of technology. By creating a world news-wire and making The Integral Worm a public company allows me to design a strong argument. I was not thinking of the project in this sense originally but as the vision unfolded more and more facets began to reveal themselves. The newswires actually ground the entire patent and rein in the imagination. The newswires permit a "space" that now reins the re-invention in from fantasy to science fiction. The newswires ground the re-invention in the here and now and creates a new "space" for political and ethical commentary. How much larger an argument can one create when discussing technological advancement at the cost of human lives?
What rhetorical decisions/choices were made in writing the promotional news-wire, "Integral Worm Interfaces the Human Brain with a Computer?"
At most newspapers, the reporter does not write the header of the article: the copy editor writes headers for all articles to be published. The reporter places a sentence at the top of the article telling the copy editor what the article is about. The header is written to “grab” the readers attention or answer the question, “Why should I read “this” article?”
In "this" header, "Integral Worm Interfaces the Human Brain with a Computer" the word "The" has been dropped from the company's name because "The" is not essential for the header. The header tells the reader "Who/Agent acted upon what" which is "what" makes "this" article newsworthy. Interfacing a computer with the human brain is not something that is done everyday, it is a breakthrough in science and therefore "this" is newsworthy.
The “Article Date” 01/16/11 was chosen in order to push the news release away form the unlikely announcement dates of December 31 and January 1, New Years Eve and New Years day respectively as most likely no real business would be conducted on “these” dates.
The name of the reporter “Tarmo Virki” was lifted off a sample news article in eWeek and chosen for its “International Sound” or “Metropolitan Flavor” adding authenticity to “this” article being an “International news wire.”
eWeek was chosen for the news release as “this” is the most likely publication the science and technology community would be scanning for new developments in order to maintain a competitive edge in their own careers and companies.
HELSINKI (Reuters) was lifted from a sample news-wire and used because “this” would add to the International flavor of the news-wire by placing the interview in Helsinki, Finland.
“Artificial Intelligence” (AI) is mentioned as The Integral Worm’s specialty because it is highly likely that a company specializing in “this” technology would be the one to make a breakthrough in connecting the Human brain to a computer. I have chosen AI because of my own personal interest in the subject and writing from personal interest is easier than delving into areas an author/designer has no interest in. “This” personal interest was most likely stimulated by Stanley Kubrick’s film, 2001: A Space Odyssey produced in 1968, that I saw at the tender age of eleven. Since age three, I have always been attracted to “space” which probably stimulated my interest in “science” and I always had an affinity for intellectual science fiction versus the old tiresome conquest military “stuff.” “This” movie for me held many unanswered questions and still does even after reading Arthur C. Clark’s novel many years later and it is not until Clark’s release of the novel,
2010: The Year We Make Contact, that Clark finally brings us into his discourse as to what he meant and did not mean in 2001: A Space Odyssey.
“Increasing revenues” is mentioned in the article because “this” is what is most important to all companies and the phrase “flagship product” is used to promote how essential “this” new technology is to the company. In other words, “this” article is written from the perspective of allowing The Integral Worm to flex its intellectual muscles.
The phrase, “We are on the bleeding edge of technology,”
is used in order to pump up the newly patented technology, Cyberpeople, the company The Integral Worm, and the CEO (Chief Executive Officer)/CIO (Chief Information Officer), P. Christopher Paul. I chose my own name (the author and designer of "this" communicative objective), as I am the CEO/CIO in my own company in reality (in a small company one wears many hats) and because by using my own name, “this” provides grounding in reality shifting the technology into the Science Fiction genre versus Fantasy genre.
The quotation by the president of The Integral Worm is
presented in the second paragraph as is the tradition of the journalism writing genre.
The interview being conducted in Helsinki, Finland was borrowed from the eWeek news article I was using as a sample of how to write an International news wire. This also added to the International flavor of “this” article on Cyberpeople. The client company name “Interspatial Inc.,” was created by the designer. “Inter” from Latin meaning “between” or “among” and “spatial” from the meaning “of, relating to, involving, or having the nature of space.” The linking of the prefix “inter” and the word “spatial” plays with several ideas and themes running through “this” communicative objective. One, “Interspatial” plays with the boundary-crossing of the human inner space of the mind with the inner space of the computer. Two, “Interspatial” plays with the stimulus provided by the lecture
"Magic, Mathematics, and Masonry” when Dr. Brent Morris said that “some people think spatially” meaning that they visually manipulate “artifacts” in their mind which then connects to my “theme” that many people think spatially but lack the abilities to release or present “these” thoughts to others because they cannot project or communicate “these” concepts or artifacts from their own “inner space” their minds, into reality or the “outer space” of the real world because of inefficiencies in the effective literacy/literacies to present “these” concepts, artifacts, or ideas. Third, within the Shipka Spaces one of our prime goals is to communicate across boundaries, performing boundary-crossings, merge various modalities and mediums of communication to create more effective communications and to analyze these newly created “spaces” within a social context.
“The Cyberpeople Jack...” paragraph does the work traditionally done in news articles about technology. It describes what the “new” technology is, what it does, and how it does it on a lay person’s level of understanding and comprehension. Existing computer technologies are used in order to rein the re-patent idea in and ground them to known technologies and science preventing the re-patent from falling into the genre of Fantasy.
The fourth paragraph in the promotional news wire further explains the technology in the CEO’s words but also demonstrates the CEO’s arrogance and disrespect for humanity in the use of such words as “…this technology is not for everyone…” meaning that the technology was specifically designed for the elite few who can afford to go through the no doubt expensive procedure of receiving the implant. In other words, for the few people that “money is no object.” Later in the same paragraph the CEO said, “We were vigilant to make this happen. “This” referring to the technological system Cyberpeople. The choice of the word “vigilant” is the code word which demonstrates the CEO’s arrogance, meaning “We don’t give a damn what the ethical implications may be of “this” artifact. Our prime function is to forge ahead into the "unknown” and “prove” to the world that “we can do this” “This” refers to the reality of connecting the human mind to a computer.
The quote in the fourth paragraph serves the purpose of breaking up the article with quotes and separates out the technology description parts to make for a more interesting read as is a journalism tradition.
The next paragraph further describes how Cyberpeople operates, continues to ground the re-patent in reality, and demonstrates that the reporter is doing their job as a writer by “directly quoting what is worth quoting or memorable” and paraphrasing what is not deemed as important by the reporter/writer but acknowledging the source of the information.
The sixth paragraph reinforces in the reader’s mind what was said in paragraph four but also reinforces and further demonstrates the arrogance of “this” CEO. This is demonstrated when the CEO says, “This technology is extremely cost prohibitive… the object was to prove that we could do this.” The use of the word prove is interesting. Prove to who; humanity, other scientists, or himself? The question is unanswered but the CEO demonstrates a genuine lack of concern for the ethical implications of “this” new re-patent Cyberpeople. The CEO seems to be pumping up an already over-inflated ego.
The last paragraph totes the company as an Internationally traded company demonstrating not only its power but also why this company should be concern itself with ethical considerations. Electrobiosys is a fictitious company implying by its name that originally the company was involved with biology and electrical conduits of some type. In other words, the manufacture of nerve tissue for patients with nerve damage, hence why The Integral Worm bought out the company.
The graphic that was used to represent sample output of a subject's mind was what is known as a
"fractal" in mathematics. A fractal is a mathematical equation that creates "these" images when numerical values are inserted into the variables and the "c" constant is varied numerically. "This" choice stems from the stimulation received in the lecture "Magic, Mathematics, and Masonry," and the idea that some mathematicians think visually. "This" image demonstrates to the lay person what is meant to think visually in terms of mathematics. "These" mathematicians can see the equation in their head and through the use of test numbers, develop an image in their minds of what the equation physically looks like.
Out of the fractals I researched, I chose this one in gray scale for several reasons. One was at the time “this” article went to print, I could not afford to print in color so I had to choose an image that would work well in gray scale. Second, the shape of the image plays nicely with the theme. The object looks like an insect or a bug. A bug is also synonymous with a virus. This could be a computer virus generated in someone’s mind. The image also raises interesting rhetorical questions such as “Why did the text subject think of a bug? The image also works well playing with our fears of technology running amok and fears of insects. Many people embrace technology but I believe there is a point of where even the most avid of technologists begins to question “How far is too far?” Third, the gray scale image plays with the idea of Film Noir, downbeat and black in the looks, the themes, the mood, the style, the point-of-view, or tone of a film. “This” also becomes an ominous foreboding with sinister implications of what is to come next in the International news wires; the Disaster Story.
The stated fact that “over 130 test subjects have undergone the complex surgery...” further demonstrates the arrogance of the inventor. My assumption would be that such an invention would be subject to FDA regulations or some other government agency and that a ten-year testing period would have to be conducted in order to receive a government patent of “this” nature. I could not find “this” specific information on the
U.S. Government Patent website but I am sure it exists there somewhere. 130 test subjects could mean 131 test subjects that may be enough to prove statistical significance with inanimate objects but clearly not enough when human lives are at stake. In addition, one has to think, “What kind of compensation was offered to call forward 130 test subjects to go through a highly experimental procedure?” Many of the ethical concerns go un-addressed because “these” were not required by the
original communicative objective.
"We have been able not only to just present the combined strategy but also to execute and achieve that strategy. This technology is off to a great start," demonstrates not only that “this” CEO is arrogant and pompous but shows no regard for human life. The test subjects well-being is secondary to his ambition. In essence “this” guy is
Dr. Frankenstein. The CEO is more concerned that he can flaunt the test subjects versus just having say PowerPoint presentations to demonstrate this new technology.
In the paragraph, “...I'd like to believe that most of the heavy lifting is behind us," further demonstrates that the CEO sees this re-patent as an intellectual exercise as to who is the "World’s Greatest Weight Lifter" which helps to set up the Disaster news story. By portraying the CEO in this way we as readers will have little sympathy when he finally falls.
In the second to last paragraph, “Analysts and investors say the integration of the two companies is a good fit…” says to us as readers that “this” is a company worth investing in further promoting the power of the company regardless of ethical considerations. Continuing, “…because The Integral Worm’s strength is in artificial intelligence and computer systems, while Electrobiosys is a leader in regeneration of damaged nerve tissue. Answers for the reader’s question as to what these two companies do and why the CEO of The Integral Worm bought out Electrobiosys are answered as would be done in good journalistic writing.
As is done with many news articles today, the reader is referred to the website of the company for further details on this new technology.
Last the copyright symbol of
Ziff Davis Media was borrowed in order to make “this” news article appear authentic and further ground “this” communicative objective in the realm of the science fiction genre.
What rhetorical decisions/choices were made in writing the disaster news-wire, “Cyberpeople implant kills four in Baltimore?”
At most newspapers, the reporter does not write the header of the article: the copy editor writes headers for all articles to be published. The reporter places a sentence at the top of the article telling the copy editor what the article is about. The header is written to “grab” the readers attention or answer the question, “Why should I read “this” article?”
In “this” header, “Cyberpeople implant kills four in Baltimore,” the header tells the reader “What/the Agent acted upon who” which is “what” makes “this” article newsworthy. The public not only has a right to know who died and why but also the newspaper considers this a public service in that it lets people who knew these people that they have died, therefore “this” is newsworthy.
The name of the reporters, “Lutfi Oun and Ibon Villelabeitia,” were lifted off a sample news wire from Reuters and chosen for its “International sound” or “Metropolitan flavor” adding authenticity to “this” article being an “International news wire.”
BALTIMORE (Reuters) was not lifted from a sample news-wire. I used Baltimore for several specific rhetorical purposes. One, using Baltimore as the city where the disaster occurs situates the disaster and the horror close to home forcing the reader to think twice about the ethical implications of science going too far.
Second, situating the disaster in Baltimore allows me to write from a position of familiarity without having to do extensive research in keeping the article somewhat authentic and realistic. Three, I could use a Baltimore City map to look up real street addresses quickly for authenticity.
Johns Hopkins Hospital is a well-known research hospital that becomes well suited for the purpose of being the institution most likely to determine the cause of death in the test subjects.
Four, epileptic seizure was chosen as the cause of death because if such an invention like the Cyberpeople Jack was to feedback into the human body, “this” would be the most likely response.
Last, considering that “this” re-patent would most likely be quite controversial, it is likely the President would come forward to make a statement in the event of such a disaster. The rhetorical choice of Chelsea Clinton plays with the fears of the right or conservatives fears that there will be a Clinton Dynasty with Presidential power passing from Bill Clinton to Hillary Clinton to Chelsea Clinton. Chelsea becomes a likely person’s name to insert as a future President regardless of the political implications.
In paragraph two the names of the victims were lifted from another disaster story and none of these people were from Baltimore. I found extracting victims from another news story a little more comforting to me, as an author/designer, that I was using names of people who were already dead. I used Vicksburg, Mississippi as one of the other hometowns so not all the victims were Baltimorians. The names of those who died are listed in the second paragraph because none of these people are famous so therefore they are not listed in the first paragraph. “This”is typical of disaster reporting.
Finding and reporting the account by an eyewitness is typical of the disaster news story and is considered “good journalism” to get the account of an eyewitness in order to authenticate the incident. This is why an “eyewitness account” is written into the disaster story. “This” paragraph also places the reader in the shoes of one of the witnesses so the reader senses the horror of “this” incident.
By the fourth paragraph I give the cause of the disaster which is typical of disaster news reporting. I used Johns Hopkins for it world renown name as one of the top research institutions in the world.
In the fifth paragraph I am spreading out my quotes to make for more interesting reading. What the President has to say is important but not as important as the people who died or the disaster itself. This is why the President's quote is inserted lower in the story. The President’s quote is memorable because "this" becomes the central theme running through "these" newswires, "Are we considering the implications of allowing science to forge ahead without thinking about the ethical implications of its discoveries and who should control the scientists?"
In an incident a spokesperson for the company has to come forward and say something about the incident. “This” CEO spews forward the same old tiresome rhetoric usually heard from leaders in such a position, therefore the public has to wonder, “Is this guy really sincere in what he says?” The public now has to consider, “Are these people really thinking about ethical considerations or are they only racing forward for the prestige and the glory of having their name in a science textbook.
In the next paragraph the company informs the reporter what they are doing as a concerned entity to rectify the situation and to appear somewhat humanitarian in attempting to find the other 126 test subjects. It would not look good for the business if the corporation did not do this, the point is to remain in business regardless of mistakes made.
Paragraphs eight and nine I am going to analyze at the same time because they are doing the same work. “This rhetoric is expected by the general public. The CEO has to come forward as a responsible citizen and make a public statement describing to the public that the corporation is a responsible entity and that they are doing everything they can to rectify the situation. The corporation now has to switch gears and appear as humanitarians and accept the fact that a mistake has been made. The company must demonstrate they are accepting responsibility and doing something about the disaster.
Getting an insider to speak to the reporters working on “this”
disaster story is a lucky break and informs readers that there may be going on here than the CEO is willing to state. Whether there is a cover-up in the company and the CEO was aware of the problem, the reader is not provided clues but “these” companion paragraphs to set up the possibility that a cover-up has occurred. Such a disaster will have further investigation and answers to these questions and more will undoubtedly be answered.
The last paragraph is typical of a disaster story. The newspaper is performing a public service by announcing the 1-800 hotline doing the work of getting the word out that there is a place to seek help.
The copyright of Reuters was lifted from another news-wire in order to make “this” news-wire look authentic and to further ground “this” re-patent in reality.
The web link is placed at the bottom of the story as is typically done in web stories so one can find the article again if necessary.
Why rein "this" communicative objective in?
Three reasons: time, cost, and scope. All projects are subject to these physical limitations.
Why not a web page promoting the company and the product?
Time is the only reason for not creating a web page and a presence of the company on the web discussing how wonderful the invention is and another page describing what the victims involved in the disaster should do to correct the life and death consequences of not having the device removed. I have met the requirement of part two and there is a tremendous amount of information Shipka would like to know about the writing process of developing this project. In addition this is not the only project I have to do. I cannot think or work on two projects of this scope and size at the same time so the project has to be placed into its self-designed box or parameters.
Why has "this" communicative objective become a "proving ground" for the science fiction genre?
This project has provided me the "space" to seriously "play" with the science fiction genre because of its constraints. The first constraint is that the re-invention must be grounded by prior art or patents and must improve on those patents. The framing and the work the
U.S. Patent Office genre does forces me to bring the project into some form of reality. Shipka's course has been the only course in my entire academic career that has allowed me to seriously think out of the box and be mindful of the implications. I have learned that by stepping out of the box one only finds themselves in a new box with new parameters and constraints. After doing this more than a few times in "this" communicative objective, I came to the realization that there are an infinite number of boxes all of which have their own parameters and constraints. Considering that I am now working in the science fiction genre I have named this
phenomenon the "Dave Bowman Syndrome" from
2001: A Space Odyssey when he descends to the surface of Jupiter and his last know words, now altered to express my own revelation, "My God! It's full of boxes." The wide open plane is not as wide open as one thinks. There are glass walls within "this space" and I find myself as a blind man, in a black room, searching for a black cat." I am trying to determine where the glass walls exist before I walk into them. As a project begins to blossom, one finds themselves reining in the project forming new walls to the "space" and slowly reducing the size of the box one has placed themselves in by changing design goals and choices.
Why write the patent documentation in the U.S. Patent Office form? (Version 1.0)
Note: "This documentation describes goals and choices for Version 1.0 of the Re-invention of the Patent Genre which was submitted at the time of "Pass it Forward." Since "Passing it Forward" "this" part of the communicative objective has been redone and is now shown as Version 2.0.
I chose to imitate the patent document. I have a science and technology background and as awful as the language sounds in the patent, generally most hard science stuff is written this way. The patent genre forces the inventor to describe to the examiner precisely what the invention does and does not do. There is no reading between the lines. Technical documents are very specific in the work that they do and do not do. As a writer, I have to be absolutely clear in presenting my re-invention otherwise there are ethical, legal, plus life or death implications to leaving it up to the reader to read between the lines. The patent forces one to rein in their imagination and forces the re-invention under the microscope for further inspection. I have to go back to my technical writing notes to expand the argument but the patent does specific "work" that other genres of writing do not and cannot do. Okay, that's how I position myself. I am arguing that the patent does the "work" it does efficiently regardless of how awful the language of the patent sounds.
This is the "work" that the U.S. Patent does:
- It forces everyone applying for a patent to use the same style guide, that of the U.S. Patent Office.
- 2. Methods of organization
- Headers
- Allows the reader to quickly scan the documentation and find what is
important to the reader or not important to the reader.
- Headers "frame" the document.
- These are the things you can talk about: Just the facts.
- Abstract
- Forces the inventor to describe the basic premise of the invention in a
nutshell.
- The abstract provides a brief synopsis of the invention clueing the
reader whether the rest of the document is worth looking at for current
research and invention.
- Inventors use the U.S. patent as a research tool because so much of what is
invented now relies on some other technology that is outside the scope of the
inventor or organization. Some projects may lie mothballed for years waiting
for a breakthrough in a technology that will allow another company to move
forward with their patent.
- As an Engineering Aide this was my Monday job function. To take existing
projects that were hung up and search the U.S. Patent Office new patents for
the week to determine if something had been invented by someone else that was
necessary to move one of our stalled projects forward.
- The abstract also simply announces to other inventors and researchers,
"We have invented 'the wheel,' if you need one we have it or if you are
working on the invention now you will have to improve 'the wheel.'"
- References Cited
- Recognizes other inventors work and how their work lead to this work.
- U.S. Patent Documents
- Tells the reader what other inventions lead to this invention.
- Claims
- Tells the claims examiner and other readers precisely and concisely
what the new invention will do and what it will not do.
- Description
- Allows the inventor to describe the invention.
- Field of Invention
- Briefly describes what field of the technology is
categorized in.
- Description of the Prior Art
- Discuses the problems and failings of previous technologies.
- Objects and Summary of the Invention
- Permits an open space for the inventor to describe the
proposed invention to the examiner.
- Brief Description of the Drawing Figures
- Describes in brief what the examiner is looking at in the
drawings.
- Detailed Descriptions of the Preferred Embodiments
- Permits an open space for the inventor to describe
exactly what the invention is doing and how it does it.
- This section does the bulk of the work.
- Disclaimer: Because the Detailed Descriptions of the
Preferred Embodiments section relates directly to the drawing
figures and for this assignment have been made optional, due
to pressing time constraints this section does not appear in
my U.S. Patent but will be inserted if time permits. In
addition the writing processes are required in the Patent
project, once again because of time constraints, my focus and
efforts will be concentrated in developing this area which
will prove to be time consuming.
- An objective tone of voice
- This places emphasis on the importance on the invention not the inventor.
- Active voice
- Past tense when the inventor is discussing someone else's research
(given information).
- Present tense when the inventor is discussing their analysis of the research
(new information)
- The patent never uses personal pronouns
- Absolutely under no circumstances is the first person singular pronoun "I" to be
used. "I" places emphasis on the inventor and not the invention.
- The use of the first person plural pronoun "We" is never used because the inventor
is forced to place objectivity on the invention.
- Does not allow the inventor to refer to the reader. For example, "what we see here
is..."
- Forces the language to be gender-neutral.
- Tone and style of language
- The tone and style of language used is formal with factual, specialized vocabulary.
Why is the United States Patent number 15,587,598?
After analyzing the patent numbers of several patents recently received, I decided that “this” number would be a reasonable approximation for a patent number projected four years into the future. Therefore “this” patent number is anything but random.
Why is the United States Patent date December 28, 2010?
I mathematically figured out this date from observing the date on other “real patents and determined “this" would be the length of time in order to receive a patent if approved. Once again “this” choice was made to further ground the communicative objective.
“This” date was also pushed ahead slightly in order avoid the patent approval falling on the unlikely date of December 24 and 25, Christmas Eve and Christmas because most likely there would be no patents approved on “these” dates.
Why my name used as the inventor?
My name, P. Christopher Paul is used as the inventor’s name because I am the designer of “this" communicative objective.
Why is the company name "The Integral Worm?
"This" is the name of my own "real" company. An old friend, Bruce Gordon, who tutored me in mathematical integration used to say, "Sometimes you have to chase the integral worm out his borough in order to recognize its form.” Gordon thought the mathematical symbol, the integral symbol, looked like a worm and anyone who has done Integral Mathematics knows that most times one must manipulate the given equation into a recognizable form in order to integrate. Gordon in his spare time used to draw cartoon sketches of the integral worm. Considering he never did anything with the character as far as publication, I decided to recontextualize the carton character as a logo for the company and borrowed the name because much of my science training is in field of mathematics and statistics.
Why is the filing date on re-patent March 14, 2006?
"This" is the date that the re-patent communicative objective was submitted for "pass it forward." I chose "this" date as the date the patent was being submitted to while placing Shipka in the position of the Assistant Commissioner for Patents. Considering "this" communicative objective is fictitious I decided to anchor the communicative objective by using real people's names.
Why is the PCT PUB date May 14, 2006?
After examining several "real" patents I determined that patents on average were receiving “this” date two months after the filing date. Once again, “this” was done to ground the communicative objective.
Why is the 371 date and the 102(c) date September 14, 2008?
After examining several "real" patents I determined that patents on average were receiving a date two years and six months from their filing date. “This" allowed me to anchor the communicative objective further.
Why was the name Jody Shipka chosen as the primary examiner?
Shipka is the primary viewer and grader of “this” communicative objective after “pass it forward,” therefore it makes sense to assign Shipka the task of the primary examiner.
Why was Hovey Williams LLP chosen as the Attorney representing the inventor?
“This” firm was recontextualized from another patent and chosen to further ground project.
Why was the entire Re-patent Communicative Objective submitted in a manila-mailing envelope on the day of “Pass it Forward?”
To ground the project. The re-invention of Cyberpeople is so far out in left field I thought it was necessary to bring the communicative objective to Earth in an attempt to keep “this” objective in the realm of science fiction and not within fantasy.
Others probably would not give a damn if “this” objective did extend into fantasy. As a trained scientist, I am too grounded and prefer science fiction over fantasy when given a choice. Therefore, because of my own personal preferences I wanted to somehow keep “this” communicative objective anchored to the real world.
The manila envelope was to be sent to the attention of the Assistant Commissioner for Patents and the U.S. Patent Office according to the instructions on the
U.S. Patent website. In the upper right hand corner was the company name, The Integral Worm, the name of the addressee, P. Christopher Paul (myself) and the address was 1000 Hilltop Circle, Baltimore, MD 21250, the address of the UMBC University representing the research institute that developed Cyberpeople. I wanted the envelope to look like an authentic request for a U.S. Federal Patent and the delivery to Shipka to appear as though I was simply the mailman delivering the request for the patent. The upper right hand corner had three 37-cent stamps: the postage necessary for actual delivery through the mail. Something resembling a machine postal seal was hand drawn to the left of the stamps and line drawn through the stamps with a black Sharpie pen to simulate the canceling of the postage to prevent reuse. I deemed “this” the best way to package the artifact of “this” communicative objective.
Why not write the patent documentation in another genre?
No other genre of writing does the same work as the U.S. Patent Office genre. If time permits elaboration will be expanded.
Note 07/21/2006:
"This" is where the entire communicative objective goes wrong. Despite several requests for clarification as to what was expected for the writing of the patent neither my peers nor Shipka provided clarification. Shipka reads Blackboard on a regular basis and did respond from time to time but Shipka must have missed what my plans were here. Shipka's expectation here was for us as designers to re-articulate the patent in some other genre and mode (Fairy Tale, Novelette, Comic Book, Audio Tape, PowerPoint Slide Show Presentation, simply something other than the U.S. Patent Office format.) Half the class misunderstood "this." The communicative objective was to re-patent and according to Shipka's parameters "this" meant writing the patent in a different genre or possibly across genres, modes, and mediums.
After the "pass it forward date, the re-patent documentation was changed to meet the communicative objective. Both versions of the re-patent are shown in the "Re-patent Narrative-Sketch of the U.S. Patent Office Genre." Both versions are shown in this section to demonstrate what was done for "pass it forward" and what the re-articulation (correction) became. The U.S. Re-patent Format Version is called Version 1.0 and the Re-patent Narrative-Sketch is called Version 2.0. Version 2.0 is shown first even though it came last to demonstrate what was expected in "this" communicative objective.
Why not the copied form of the U.S. Patent Web Site?
I did successfully copy patent number 6,931,359 into Microsoft Word. I began to change a few things within the copied form of the U.S. Patent number 6,931,359 but quickly found that some portions were created in Microsoft Excel and would not allow me to add columns to the copied page. I wanted the company's name in the document and quickly found the copied version to be cumbersome to function with. I abandoned this idea and just typed in a new format similar to the U.S. Patent site in order to save time.
Why not re-invent the genre of U.S. Patent form?
Even though most of us complain about the language of the U.S. Patent form, the language is objective and third person, placing the action on the object and not person. The language is active voice and gender neutral placing emphasis on the work the object is doing. As cumbersome as some may find the language, for the purpose of science and engineering, objectivity is placed on the artifact and not the patent inventor. The language is straightforward and to the point. The language describes clearly and concisely what the invention will do and what the invention will not do.
Note: "This" ends the goals and choices documentation of the rhetorical decisions made in Version 1.0 of
the Re-invention of the Patent Genre that was submitted at the time of "Pass it Forward."
Why not a 3-D prototype?
For what I am doing I was going to get styrofoam mannequin head and plug the cables into the back of the head. I don’t have a car and have to get everywhere by bus. I don’t have the time to run all over Baltimore to try and find one. I am alone in Baltimore without friends or family, so I have to rely on my own resources and resourcefulness.
Second, my computer is too old for firewire cable and I’m strapped for cash just like every other student. On my budget firewire cable is relatively expensive especially when I already do not eat on a regular basis day to day. I am a hungry student with a two miniscule part time jobs without scholarships, financial aid or parental aid, rent to pay, tuition out of my own pocket, a telephone bill and an emergency Visa bill which is already over its limit.
Note: The communicative objective is complete and has been "passed forward."
UMBC is a school of engineering and science and "this" communicative objective fits in well with the rest of the UMBC community. I am seriously thinking of submitting "this" communicative objective for
Undergraduate Research and Creative Achievement Day for April 26, 2006. In the mean time, a 3D artifact will be designed in order to display the concept of Cyberpeople. The re-patent is being re-designed as a narrative-sketch and possibly a three minute slide show may be developed advertising the features and benefits of Cyberpeople.
Why not a 2-D prototype?
There will be no 2-D prototype unless time permits. See disclaimer under "Why write the
patent documentation in the U.S. Patent Office form?” heading.
Why the re-invention project proved to be difficult?
This proved to be a difficult assignment like having a gun put to your head and being told, "You will be brilliant and innovative in this very moment. Write something that is wonderfully witty or I’m going to blow your brains out." One only realizes artifacts need to be reinvented when one are interacts with them.
Without even realizing it as "this" entire communicative objective blossomed in my brain late last night after all kinds of running around various “spaces” and sharing ideas with various people on campus since Feb. 21, trying to determine what I was doing. The most important argument one can make fell into my lap. To see the argument was a matter of juxtaposition. “What are the ethical implications for humanity when we allow overly ambitious scientists to race ahead and “play God.” The contrasting of newsletters opens a public space for arguing the ethical implications of modern science: An avenue that cannot be explored because of time, scope, and cost constraints. These newsletters do the necessary work in meeting the requirement for re-presenting the re-invention to the whole of humanity. How much larger an audience can one have? Because the scope, time, and cost has become so large, this space must be reigned in so time may be spent in writing the goals and choices part of the communicative objective.
The other thing that places constraints on the communicative objective is that a similar project must be created in ENGL 407. Time must also be set aside to do readings and preparations for discussions/activities in both
ENGL 324 and
ENGL 407. Weekly posts must be created for focus questions in ENGL 324 and
ENGL 407. The environment created in ENGL 324 and ENGL 407 is a peer environment where we are encouraged to share information in a communal knowledge. It takes a tremendous amount of time and energy to not only to take but to give to others as we all negotiate this new wide open “space.”
Why the re-invention of the student desk seemed easy?
I looked up on the patent site student desks as two words in the title which proved more fruitful than searching for student desk as a phrase in the title. I knew what I was looking for. I had a full size draftsman’s table once which I regret ever having let go of. The draftsman table had foldable adjustable legs so it could be collapsed and stored away. Draftsman tables are notoriously large tables for one person and usually heavy and no movable. The table was constructed of metal tubing like the student desk but of various sizes that slid into each other. Around the smaller tubes were collars with screws that would permit the raising and lowering of the smaller tubes connected to the table surface. The larger tubes acted as the base of the table. This permitted the user to adjust the table to the height and angle the user chose. With four larger tube legs bent at 90 degrees at each end forming a "[" with the broad surface on the floor, the smaller tubes slid up and down inside the larger tube. When the thumbscrews were tightened, the collars held steadfast against the larger tube. This permitted the user to adjust the table to different heights and different angles other than horizontal as necessary. Therefore I had a similar design in mind if I was to pursue "this" re-invention.
With all the complaints mentioned in class by my peers I decided to research student chairs. There is a patent for an adjustable student chair and the patent text addresses many of our complaints, but it is clearly not made for adults but for grade school children. The invention is US Patent # 6,921,135 dated 7/26/2005 named "Child’s Adjustable Chair." I can’t see the images and with only a text description of the object I feel handicapped. It is fascinating that something that has been painful for so long, so much so that schools are moving away from purchasing similar furniture that this invention would not come along until 7/2005. “This” seems to me like a long time in coming.
Why the re-invention of the student desk was abandoned?
I knew I wasn’t the only one who had problems with these student desks and from the list of complaints in the class it was an oddity why do we still have these kinds of desks. That answer was simple. Schools need to spend money on better things other than ergonomic tables and if people are in them for limited amounts of time then why replace what isn’t broke. One should note that every semester yet another class room gets a more traditional or modern approach to learning by receiving long banquet tables and separate chairs, but this is also based on new methods of learning in the classroom. (Old school stressing the knowledge of the individual and new school stressing the collective knowledge and encouraging sharing of knowledge through collaboration.) Fundamental problem was the target audience. The only consumer to target would be schools which would lead to problems in the advertising component and the counterargument of complaint. Therefore the student desk was abandoned.
Why re-invent the landline telephone with a backspace key?
As far as my interaction during the weekend, I had to call my job Saturday to find out my hours for Sunday. While dialing (Can you still call it "dialing?" Isn't that from a rotary phone?) I pressed one number wrong. This meant that I had to hang up the receiver and begin to dial again. The answer is obvious. The question simple. "Why doesn't a telephone have a backspace key or a delete key or an erase key or a floating cursor?" "This" is not an original idea. I heard "this" last on
WCBM Talk Radio 680 AM but this was the only object I interacted with that made me stop and think. Sunday night, after work, I started a new search in the
U.S. Federal Government Patent database to find some interesting changes to the telephone but I did not find a telephone backspace key.
Why re-invention of the landline telephone with a backspace key was abandoned?
One reason is some people suffer from Triskaidekaphobia--fear of the number 13 found on the
Phobia List. The current setup of the telephone pad would require a new key resulting in thirteen keys on a telephone dialing pad. Cellular telephones have a backspace key and this may be because the cellular telephone is a later invention and part of the computer generation. The designers having grown up with computers may have decided that a backspace key is a necessary function.
Second reason for abandoning the landline with a backspace key is more and more people own cellular telephones and public telephones are quickly becoming a thing of the past. In the next twenty years public telephones may disappear altogether. Support for “this” idea may be found at the
2600: The Hacker Quarterly, www.2600.com, a hackers magazine online. 2600 maintains a catalog of photographs of public telephones and shows six new public telephones from around the world every month in anticipation that “these” artifacts will eventually be retired to museums.
Third reason is as cellular technology improves, there may not be a need for landlines. Today this is not the case and most people maintain a landline because of the dependability of landline technology or lack of dependability of a mobile phone.
The main problem I figured with "this" re-invention was trying to re-market the landline telephone. At this point I think people really don’t even care anymore whether the landline phone does not have a backspace key. I think only those that were buying a phone to replace a broken phone would buy one with a backspace key. Along the same lines writing a counterargument such as letters of complaint would prove difficult because the technology has been around for so long and is quite dependable.
Why re-invent the hammer?
I also considered hammers from
Petroski’s reading because his having said there were
300 hammers I had to stop and think. My father had three if I remember correctly. My mother had two. I was an auto mechanic and taught myself to do body repair. I no longer have my tools but could think of the various hammers I had and came up with a count of fourteen. Each one had a very specific purpose and even something as simple as a ball peen hammer came in various weights in order to place more impact behind a blow.
The focus of the hammer handle also came into consideration. My father’s hammers had wooden handles. Some of mine had wooden handles, others had ergonomic handles made of fiberglass with steel shaft centers and they were purchased in the late seventy’s. My body hammers had fiberglass shafts with rubber handles in order to reduce hand strain while swinging them over extended periods of time. A while ago I saw a program on technology about why
Stanley Works changed the handles to its hammer handles to fiberglass with a steel shaft. The purpose was to reduce the impact shock to the user that was transmitted through the hammer handle. In other words, once a blow has been struck, as with all energy it is neither created nor destroyed so it has to change form and go somewhere. Part is sound and part travels through the hammer handle into the user’s hand and up through their forearm and wrist. The handle absorbs some of the energy reducing user fatigue.
Why the re-invention of the hammer and the hammer handle were abandoned?
Two honest reasons: Two honest reasons: one hammers are boring, hammer handles are doubly
boring. Two the re-invention got lost in all the excitement when the creative juices began to kick in.
Why the re-invention of the non-reusable candy cellular telephone?
I found a few patents for non-reusable telephones so there was a history of patents I could position myself against. The un-useful and unhygienic idea is a non-reusable cellular phone made out of hard candy like a Lifesaver. The thought comes from a series of old jokes in a chat room. At the time, beepers were still popular and were being sold in the
iMAC color traditions of clear colored cases. "These" artifacts were not marketed by color but by flavor. The person who started this said she wanted a “grape” (purple) beeper instead of a “cherry” (red) beeper so if she wanted a snack she could lick the beeper. If that was true did a black beeper taste like “licorice?”
This re-invention always had possibilities because it is wacky and out of character for me. The target audience would be college students, teens, and tweens. In order to fulfill the 250 word minimum for the advertisements I would have to create several advertisements and most of them would have to be wacky visual stuff.
Why the re-invention of the non-reusable candy cellular telephone was abandoned?
The whole idea was not playing to my strengths. I am not a graphic artist and there is not enough time in a day to try and gather all the possible artwork necessary. The counterargument would be relatively easy because I could have written news articles about the lack of hygiene with these phones and also the possibility of tweens, even teens for that matter, when the phone would become a certain size they would begin to chew them and start swallowing electronic components.
Candy beepers was easily abandoned because very few people use beepers today because of falling costs on cellular telephones and calling packages. As more people sign up for cellular phones the cost of the technology becomes lower making the beeper yet another technology museum artifact.
What happened to all “these” artifacts? A
Rube Goldberg Machine, a Dick Tracy wrist watch computer, the automobile dashboard, the
automobile steering wheel, the
mousetrap,
wrenches and last but not least the removable RAM chip to enhance human short term memory?
Honestly, I had no passion for these ideas for re-invention. These artifacts did not move me in any particular way and as an author finds it easier to write about artifacts that one is passionate about. The same is true in design. All these artifacts became lost and forgotten.
The Integral Worm •
Christopher Paul •
Independent Senior Technical Writer/Editor
The Home Page ·
The Integral Worm ·
My Resume ·
My Show Car ·
My White Papers ·
Organizations I Belong To
Contact Me ·
FAQ ·
Useful Links
Return to the top of the page
