The Machine

The Machine – The Officine

Professor Tool –my student – [nuts and bolts] – I’d like that you to effort more yourselves, pay less attention to the plate and payed more attention on yourselves, on the importance that you are for one another.

Machine –professor, this is in what part of the manual?

Tool –it’s not in the manual, Machine. I was only teaching y’all to be more productive.

Machine –you are. –and makes a nervous tick.

Tool –I know, but I as trying to teach you to be more yet.

Machine –you sir are an holographic image.

Tool –I’m an impress circuit.

Machine –your function is to mark the position and mine is to follow the line of the metal: be a good welder, and I will be a good digital impression.

Tool –it was this that I was talking about, Machine, the social function. How good that you understood. Even better than me. The charging will lead us to a state of distrust, which will make us produce always more.

A characteristic of my drawings are their relation with the previous drawings. Are not reflexive drawings. Are drawings that I call of passage.

In mode that, this drawing possesses a strict relation with the one of the Metal Tree. To explain this relation is what I consider complicated. But indeed, it’s not.

As I said before, art shouldn’t be explained. But, if I don’t do it, there will be a tendency of treating it as something existent. It’s an interesting thought, because, it’s exactly what’s being discussed: the existence.

The computer is what better translates The Machine: it’s the last stage of evolution of a kind of rationality: The Unity. It’s interesting the concept of CPU: central unity of processing. The processor is understood as being the own computer itself. When we understand the process of mechanization of the man, which resulted of the use of the tool¸ we return to the primordium and many explanations are proposed, if when this started: the most, archaeological. Not less curious as it was informed us, that the civilization initialized in Sumer: and that there was the first time that appeared the mattock:

The origin of how and when it started the use of the tools on earth, it’s unspecific: but it’s known that the Sumer people possessed a binary language: and to them is given the credit: the first system of data storage, and the origin of the programming. Abraham was a Sumerian. But when we talk about languages, of programming, we’re also talking about something else:Conversion: it converts electrical signals into data: the computer understanding is relatively simple. And the drawing is self-explanative. And numerous times the computer has been presented us compared to the human body, compared to the own man. And an universe of possibilities was mounted above these questions: the relation between the man and the machine: movies such as James Cameron’s one, The Terminator, 2001 A Space Odyssey, of Stanley Kubrick; and most recently, Matrix. And Avatar, of James Cameron once again; Even Chaplin in the movie Modern Times. For this, when looking at the drawing, there’s a tendency of correlating it with these other proposed ideas, due to the understanding that the machine refers to another concept: technology. And that the technology, without bigger explanations for this, changes the standard of human relation: and that it modifies the idea which projected it: The sociology raised itself over this argument. Is as if the machine had the power of changing the relation with God, that the own human being instituted. The machine doesn’t works this way. The heaven is only a projection of this relation. The Industrial Revolution is a good example of this.

The Drawing possesses a relation with the Earth: not with the heaven.

The processor, placed as instrument of conversion, it’s the human conscience¸ which raised itself on the clay. On the example of the carcass, the box is over the earth¸ the idea of annex: something that is fixed over something. It’s the same relation of the chips, are fixed on the surface of something as well.

So, the first relation which is extracted of the drawing, it’s their geometrical position: it is superficial, and it is annexed over another.

The cited movies, and I could’ve mentioned other of the category, such as Blade Runner, etc.: all little movies, movies really smalls: they’re so small, because all erred on their futuristic proposals. Spielberg that don’t let me lie, with his Jurassic Park. Indeed, I don’t have much to talk about Hollywood, I will show Hollywood: because it’s something unhideable. I say that these little things don’t have the amplitude of this simple drawing. Manage to resume the humanity to one image, without rationality breaks, without dualities, capturing the unity in its own incomprehension, it’s an almost personal satisfaction: even because, I hate geometry, and the drawing requires geometry: I have difficulty, even in Photoshop, on doing straight lines.

The bolts and nuts, is something comprehensible: are part of the structural group of the metal: the steel plates: are used to fix a surface over the other: socially understood as the proletariat, economically, as the labor force¸ politically as pieces without self-will, used in the operations of results. For this, the motherboard, possesses a vision of a classroom. And that the pieces are not paying so much attention, maybe this is not so visible: a certain tiredness, the hasslement, the confinement: the only one who’s paying attention is the Processor, understood as the Machine, a fat and smart student of IBM: which represents the protestant, the capitalism. The dialog occurs with The Tool, the Democracy, the Catholic: and discusses the efficiency through charging, the mechanism of servant and seigneur : it’s a Biblical dialogue : it’s the kind of charging that should exist between a man and a woman.

This kind of relation would induce to perfection¸ the perfecting of the results defined in the operational system: in the case, the Bible, the Judaism Perfected. In this moment, it’s perceivable seeing, of the many breaks of rationality of the unity, breaks these that are seen in the already quoted movies: that without the nature, there wouldn’t be conversion: the word would never be converted: for this, not only the Bible is fixed over the stem of the tree, as the tree is fixed over the metal steel, over the source of feeding of the computer.

In the same mode, the source of the computer doesn’t explains where its energy comes from. It’s intelligible perceive that the carcass, the box, is also fixed over the earth: and it’s intelligible perceive that the system of human supplying, the energy from there it takes off his livelihood, giving to understand that the human being would manage to, some day, create a source of supplying external to the nature: because this is exactly the origin of the source of their arguments: On Genesis 4, God says to Cain that if the doesn’t till the earth, he will not be able to extract her force for him. It’s the dorsal spine of the Judaic thinking, where Christ signed below. I always quote Matthew 13, because it’s very clear the genetic concordance: because indeed, its about a Judaic Genome.

Recently, the super wise Stephen Hawking, sentenced humanity with his following prophecy: “The Final is Here”: until there, no news, because it’s something that everybody knew already, it already existed a prophecy about his.

This doesn’t reach to blur the other prophecy, the heaven, but if we tool as base the image which was validated, that one of Lucky Skywalker, and that the human theory would be exported to the stars, the Bible, on its actual condition, before the facts, it’s a fable. The human operational system is a fable: it’s not natural.

The opened CD-ROM, shows how this system is loaded for the inside: through The Word: and that the word indeed is only the system of conversion: the factorization: the conversion of nature in human values: She’s the plate, the line of the steel. The rational circuits, functioning as a neural system: data traffic: the communications of the senses: how it must react to the commands: interpreting the results.

The Machine possesses eyes, because it’s the understanding that we have of the machine: it is the image of the human being. Stanley Kubrick, on “2001”, came to propose that it could only have been a machine that made the human being.

And the eyes represent exactly the image. The image is something processed: it is extracted of the conversion of data. And, of course, the architect of all this, the Tool, it is moved by the hand of the man: it was the man who built the machine. What shows that, every creation is a construction. Therefore, it’s a conversation between the Tool – the Judgement, and the Processor – The Machine, the purpose: one justifies the other: the relation of servitude: the tool serves to the man, in the same mode that the man is slave of the tool. The capitalism is always fixed by the democracy, the protestant is always fixed by the catholic: and vice-versa.

The drawing shows, overall, the superficial human relation: all the human relations are superficial.

The all structure also may be understood as the cities, that humanity lives inside a metal box, and inside of this box it declares its existence: and from inside of this box, seeks a relation with the nature: the extraction for his own results.

The earth possesses a relation with the universe, the man possesses a relation with the earth. The man seeks for a relation with the universe from inside of something that he builded: it’s from where his understanding of God comes from: an holographic projection, projected over the surface of the earth. The survival was the explanative vein most usual for this, the machine sketches only a characteristic of its evolutive ideas, taken to the ultimate: the immortality: to transform everything around you and yourself in synthetic, inorganic, metal, shows the point of fusion of its ideas: the separation, the concept of annex, the man opted by the destruction of all the living organism. And going down to the level of the most low entrances, it’s found the purity. It’s another drawing, that’s inside of the processor, the Christian Bathroom: is where I describe the relation of the drawings which illustrate the Black Box: something that’s being contextualized in the histories.

In the futuristic movies, the fiction ones, the fables, just as the standard bible, all unidimensional, because understands the existence as being one, argument that the machine would someday have human feelings, equal to his creator. And that, by this so, it would tend to turning against its creator, be it by finding it imperfect, be it by a simple manifestation of the evil: it’s something that all the super quoted movies of Hollywood never explained very well: it’s the famous “something happened”. In mode that all the human philosophy doesn’t possesses passages with the earth, only connections: something that raised from the floor, the steel. The ones which adventure on explaining this, always engage in a fight between Cain and Abel, meaning it, the same person¸ the autocritics of the reason, or of the lie: the such atomized duality: ora, go to shit will all these literary craps. You can say that the drawing is ugly, or that I could’ve made it better, and I may even agree, but because as I already said, I hate geometry: now, to say that it’s wrong and that the comprehension don’t proceeds, no: you may not like of the image which represents it: but it’s perfectly suitable.

The image around, outside of the case, it’s the image of the heaven, the idea of how the earth is understood: a plain surface where the man habitate.

This analogy is so powerful, that it explains the own biology and the medicine in their own comprehensions of the own genetics. Every biological relations are understood as superficial ones. Per this, the explanation of the human feelings, are also superficial.

Synaptically, the human being is understood as an electrical circuit. And it was found in the beginning, that this influenced on their images. So, the human system was developed, so that the human being could invert this relation: and that the nature should have his feelings: more yet: that the nature didn’t had any feelings at all: and that the human being should have his images: but that these images would only be his if a set of human relations were created.

I discuss exactly this: what kind of modifications were initialized, that is basically, the conversion of the natural: and how this altered the essentiality of something.

From then, the human feelings started to have their own representativeness: the feelings started to have a defined standard: the suffering: very well rendered by the work: it’s another drawing which accompanies the Clock in the Universe: this drawing will be shown forward, for it’s linked with the histories in progress: and it relates many interesting magnitudes, unities of value, justice, equality, property and freedom.

Are mature ideas that are very stepped away of their germinative core. There’s a very important stage to be won: the fear and the safety.

And these relations are involved justly with the relations with the Earth. It’s innocuous understand the relation of the man and the machine¸ of the man and the man¸ from their own personal relations: for it would be validate their own misunderstanding of their own origins: one cannot start from the floor. In the moment, the human being possesses a digestive relation with the earth, and not an absorptive one. It’s correct the understanding that your feelings possess a relation with the gods and that its primordiality, from which raises the declaration of existence¸ would be bounded primarily, to an specific sentimental activity: he would be the ballast of the human behavior, and from which aroused all the rules: a standard on the feelings.

There’s no origin on this thinking: the human being pleads to be the will of God something derived of the creation: it’s his resultant operational system: and its many versions: from Sumer to the Modern Christianism, the Philosophy of the Occident, the system passed by many updates, and the Democracy is the synonym of the perfection. I come talking about the democracy and its features, but for more that the question be interiorized and I advance over the existent literatures, I would be always talking about the functioning of something, would be always over a surface: and would be always hostage of the angles of the plain:

And as I said, I want to talk about another things, I want to show another things: but, unfortunately, I need to show the standard face of the truth. In mode that the worrying now is on showing The Bathroom, the other box, which is inside the processor of the machine: the human feelings in functioning: it gives a good idea of how this processor was constructed: and to what the tool indeed refers to: an extractor of result: the judgement in functioning: it’s to this that the drawing The Machine refers to.


Featured Posts