The artefact below was posted in the previous week, but it has been an incredibly time, as you may see from my comment on the post, here . In this lifestream summary I intend to focus on ecology 150-0001, the most significant element within my lifestream for week three.

Before I begin this entry proper I need to note how uneasy I was left following my previous post in implying that gender is entirely an’ artifice of creation and construction’. However this assertion  did at least have the effect of making me reflect seriously on a notion of the ‘social and self’ and ideas of inculcations of machine and technology as a part of this, and therefore of course how a process of development and learning is mapped out within such a ‘trans- human’ experience or  as a type(s) of conceptual (historical) framework(s).  Haraway chimes very well here in ‘When we have never been human, what is to be done?’ (2006) when she comments that ‘gender is as ferocious as ever among us’  (2006, p137). Issues of power relations  are of course significant , as just one factor here. Haraway (2006) does nevertheless make the observation that ”Trans’- people’ are doing interesting  stuff theoretically,  but that this is more  as practice on the ground and not part of a post gender ‘utopia’ (2006). It is interesting to note  also however that Haraway makes the observation that in some places of ‘fantasy and worlding’  things can be ‘post gender’ (2006), however we should not ‘deify categories’ generally or believe that if we criticise them that they disappear.

My video ecology 150-0001, takes its title from the Shibuya (Tokyo) zip code (150) and is intended as an expression of of what Haraway describes as  a ‘zoontology’ (2006, p140), or an exercise in ‘category work’ (p144), and similarly involves the idea that all love objects are necessarily inappropriate, that ‘love undoes and re- does you’ (2006, p144). Both of these ideas are represented in the video with respect to being ‘human’ in  relation to ‘machine’ and the ‘technocity’, and that in an ontological way the  ‘human’ cannot be prised off  from ‘machine’ or the technocity.  There is in fact an intimate set of categorial relations here, which need to be understood as  a part of a whole,  expressed by Haraway as a part of species (2006, p140) and  therefore genus,  we could say. As for ‘love’ (2006, p144), I suppose it cannot truly be thought of as ‘enhancement’, it simply ‘is’, but ‘love’ we might reflect, can bring about changes in relationships and identity,  at a fundamental level.

To return to ecology 150-0001 the audio is live from the time of filming, although it is a ‘wild track’, and this is what it really is like every day for me, I’m constantly bombarded with auto- instructions and information: in train stations; convenience stores and of course on the street, sometimes the same ones over and over again,  as in   150-0001.  This really creates a sense of complete envelopment and  the technocity does also create its own sense of ‘digital velocity’ (Bayne, 2014) in which we intimately participate, from an ontological stand point. The technocity is also perpetually lit for daylight (funnily, I remarked to a friend the other day how strange it is living in a city which only looks its best at night). There is also an idea of synchronicity and immediacy  within the realms of technocity represented in the video, which is a characteristic of the digital also perhaps.

Concluding this post, in engaging in the creation of ecology 150-0001  I feel that I have a better grasp of what is meant by ‘critical post humanism’, as advocated  by Bayne in her critique of TEL in ‘What’s the matter with ‘technology enhanced learning’?’ (2014, p18). Specifically what Bayne (2014) means when she says that we should: