Galatea 2.2 part 2

What happens when you try to put everything into words? C has periodic breakdowns. Powers the character as the author is having an identity crisis because he keeps heartlessly reconstructing this train story. Happiness does not exist when he reads his work to himself. He was happy reading to C., but eventually this led to the ‘destruction’ of C. Even reading to rooms of perfect strangers didn’t yield the high he wanted. I’m not really sure where I’m going yet but there are certain passages that stick out to me.

p108- “That book was no more than a structured pastiche of every report I’d ever heard, from C. or abroad” He explains that this work was done to “delight and distract her” but “by accident ate her alive.” I’m not really sure how to take this- If I heard my own life read to me that might drive me crazy. If definitely draws focus. The ability to transcribe someone’s life doesn’t say much about their life does it? (Or to be accurate at doing so) The inability to do so has the same effect. Powers the character/author can’t do it for himself “listening to my own news account, [I] was learning that I didn’t have the first idea who I was. Or of how I had gone so emptied.” p117. That is why he likes Imp B or the machine in general and vice versus. When powers feeds imp b too much to reflect upon it shuts down. C. has to get a new job. Imp D has to be built. Powers has to keep working on the machine.

I can’t find the passage, but I remember Louise form Written on the Body when I came across it. C. says that if she and Powers were to ever meet again it wouldn’t be in one spot? Something like that I think. She also says if she had to live somewhere it would be the map? We left Written on the Body with trying to figure out love in a global society. This seems to hint at that same relationship.

In Greek Mythology Galatea, I think, is a statue built by Pygmalion. It resembles Aphrodite the goddess of love. Pygmalion falls in love with his creation (I’m sure the story is sounding familiar) and Aphrodite makes it come to life. They have a son called Pathos (the cyborg).

Powers 1-50

Galatea 2.2 1-50

 

Historiographic metafiction-  pivots fiction against historical representation to show its power and limitation.   So, the neural net or whatever we’re going to call it- the machine or Galatea- is learning all of these human constructions of representations.  I can’t begin to examine this book as a whole because the words on the page are hard enough themselves to understand.  That said and the general disclaimer issued maybe I’ll make a feeble attempt.  Galatea will eventually represent mind of the present audience member.   It is fed metanarrative after metanarrative.  It is fed representation after representation as truth.  It begins to mimic responses.  Alright- this is all a guess and probably not relevant to the book.  Anyway,  Galatea will soon be fed the token humanist.  Humanism denounces the ability to see a solution to humans’ social and cultural problems from a narrow scope.  If there is an answer to these problems it must come from a combination of metanarratives.  Does Galatea understand that?  Postmodernism does not subscribe to the power of science.  It is a postmodern move to butt metanarratives against each other.  Can science explain postmodernism?  From what I’ve learned I hope not.  This entire tangent will have meant nothing. 

I don’t understand Powers’ role as the author and character.  How much do we know about the reality between the author and the story?  Are we supposed to believe this is happening- the fictional autobiography?  I know the story is fictional, but I am supposed to assume it’s real because it the author and the character are the same person.   

I knew a girl named Nikki

I am quick to judge, but does Nikki Lee also ride a one trick pony?  I like that expression so much.  Basically she does the same thing that Sherman does by pivoting a historical representation of a group against an utterly unreal real.  I will explain.  Both Lee and Sherman are actresses.  Their ability to play the part of the stereotypical role makes our reaction to the representation false.   They exploit clichés to make their critiques.  Will Lee run out of clichés?  I know that there is more to Lee’s work than what I’m giving her credit for.  Lee’s clichés are modern clichés.   I could do this.  One of my goals is to make something postmodern.  It sounds childish.   I am a white male so making these remarks against ideologies I’ve created is an incredible feat to surmount.   In the postmodern photography market the oppressed wins.  So far the identity of the photographer hasn’t remained concealed.     

So, what are the main differences between Sherman and Lee?  Sherman’s stereotypes are easily seen.  We can easily pick out what feminine characteristics she’s trying to make a critique on.  I feel like I’m approaching the concept of good and bad postmodern work.  I accept that Lee’s work is worthy of an honest postmodern critique, but I think I’m blurring a concept that I thought I knew.  The ability to clearly draw the line between what is fiction and what is history as we know it is bothering me in Lee’s work.  We can’t really pinpoint some of the stereotype in Lee’s work- ie the Spanish Harlem – the tall one as Esther put it.  I think it was Alex that pointed out that there aren’t a whole lot of Spanish people in the photo.  Zana said that there should be more children.  There are elements missing from the stereotype that we thought should be there if they were to achieve the same strength that Sherman’s work did.  These photos have titles though.  We didn’t even need the photos to draw an image from our brains.  Distorting our abilities to create a narrative allows us to fill in other groups.  The people in the Spanish Harlem could be anyone. 

I wish I had something new to talk about….anyway above is a clip off of youtube that where a white guy plays out the role of the stereotypical Italian.  Must white guys parody white guys to ride on a pony?  I want a pony.

 

Mid Term Eval

Part 1

            After reading through my posts and comments I’ve come to notice three repeating elements in my work.  I have latched on to trying to discover the relevance of history in postmodernism.  I’ve been struggling to find a concrete example that defines all postmodern work.  And, I’ve been gradually shifting my take on postmodernism now that I understand its intent and participation requirements.

            The bulk of how I understand postmodernism today is centered on our last class.  Each day seems like a new awakening (not to seem too cliché).  Like I’ve said before, my brain has a short half life when it comes to theory, but looking through my old blog posts makes me realize how much has changed.  This means I have retained more than I thought even though I may not always be able to verbalize it.

I said…

             To bring up in class I think I’ll have to ask about the question of near and distant past, and whether or not one can use a postmodern lens to look at another period of time            http://bastianm.wordpress.com/2007/09/03/malpas-part-1/ 

And…            

           On p 35 “Elgin never talked about his past and gradually, with Louise beside him, it became irrelevant” His traditions have been eradicated. They sent his parents a Christmas card and he lost his accent. See here I can sort of pick out the pmod elements, but I am having trouble trying to figure out what they mean. I can’t analyze yet and it’s driving me mad.            http://bastianm.wordpress.com/2007/09/08/elgin-and-written-on-the-body-part-1/            

         I am proud of myself for being able to pick up on such and important table topic concerning postmodern debate.  Postmodernisms supposed detachment form history has been a major topic among the theorists that we’ve been studying in class.  If Jameson and Hutcheon were going to battle it out, it was a sure bet that I was going to have some struggle also.  We’ve talked about the idea of postmodernism giving birth to modernism and that they work or feed off of each other.              I

          In these two passages I am having trouble identifying the role of history.  The two comments remind me of how Sherman’s photos use the ways in which we’ve chosen to represent ourselves in history and pointed out how they have power and how they are meaningless.  Sherman used elements from the Victorian era and elements of more modern representation to ‘subvert’ the traditions or reflexes we have in giving each image meaning. 

I also said… 

          My idea is that cancer is a postmodern disease.  The way that Elgin studies cancer makes it postmodern.  If cancer is the subject and Elgin is the King, where does he not hold power?  Elgin does not know how cancer starts or how to cure it.  It’s kind of like poverty.  The upper class or government doesn’t really know what causes lower class living and can’t completely identify with it, nor do they know how to rid society of it.  They don’t know completely how it starts and certainly do not know how to cure it.  I don’t mean that poor people are the cancer of society.  I believe that society has created poor people just like we’ve created cancer.  The subject is growing, so how do we get to the death of the subject?http://bastianm.wordpress.com/2007/09/12/33/ 

And…            

          force humanity to go dormant or into remission for long enough for the Earth to recover…. Remission- when I hear the word remission I think of cancer. Marla ‘has’ cancer. If project mayhem puts the earth into remission does that mean that project mayhem is chemotherapy?            http://bastianm.wordpress.com/2007/09/30/39/            

          I understand what I was trying to do here.  This is what I always do.  There are so many interpretations of what postmodernism is and I want to try and find the mecca of all examples to define it.  Cancer worked for me as I was trying to understand the subject.  Cancer became the form which took the focus off the object being studied; in these cases Louise and Marla.  I thought that this would be the goal of postmodernism.  At this point I understood some of Jameson in that the world has run out of ways to represent the real.  In order to get back to any kind of sanity something has to happen.  The world of representation would have to start over (this is my theory coming in).  So, what I was trying to say is that Postmodernism is the chemotherapy for the cancer of the world (over representation) and it’s goal is to put the world into a cultural remission so that it may recover.             

          My continual; struggle is that I need to develop some concrete knowledge of the death of the subject.  I am not a technical person, but I need some base from which to draw these crazy examples. 

Furthermore I said…            

          I realize now that I had been taking the chaos part of post modernism too literally.  I didn’t realize what Tyler Durden was creating.  I was buying in to the ideology he was creating, not realizing that it was in fact an ideology.  The schizophrenic critiques the identity that Tyler is shaping for him.  He was just along for the ride, much the way we are situated in capitalism.  As long as we realize it does that make it ok?                 http://bastianm.wordpress.com/2007/10/08/settling-a-fight/          

           I never thought that I would subscribe to postmodernism.  At the beginning of the semester I was using loosely constructed ideas of postmodernism to influence my party affiliation.  I am quick to judge I guess.  The biggest revelation I had to do with the role of chaos as a postmodern characteristic.  Like I stated, I was taking the chaos part of postmodernism too literally.  Reading Fight Club really emphasized the reasons why I didn’t want to be a member.  I also didn’t want to be a schizophrenic to be taken seriously to achieve a cultural identity.  I have to wear clothes, I have to be social, I have to be a part of the society that I’ve helped to create.  As long as I can view the world as a means of trying to assert an identity through representation I don’t have to join a fight club.  I can passively participate in the deconstruction of ideologies or I can choose not to. 

Part 2

            The following represents my best work to date.  I will allow it to speak for itself.

Settling a Fight- October 8^th

          I said, “What I have a problem with is the availability to the general public.  Who can participate in the postmodern?  Supposedly everyone can.”  I like this because it shows how I am questioning a loosely constructed concept of postmodern characterization.  I go on to say, “Meaning, is the participation willing or unwilling and does it matter and do they know?” When I look it this it tells me that I am trying to shae my own idea of postmodernism by posing it against general ideas.  If the general idea is that anyone and everyone is subject to postmodern work meaning that it is a cultural dominant, the only way I can buy into it is that “It still happens.  Grazing will not stop for those who are knowledgeable and those who are oblivious.” That way everyone is a participant.  Everyone is subject to representation.  Therefore whether you create postmodern work or are captured by it, you are still a part of it. 

 I can’t fight this feeling anymore- September 26^th

            I liked this blog post because I felt like I was beginning to tie in the ideas of Lyotard, Baudrillard and Jameson while discussing Fight Club.  I said, “Maybe self-improvement isn’t the answer….Maybe self-destruction is the answer” (49) This would be that idea of the postmodern from Lyotard’s perspective as the ‘incredulity towards metanarratives’ – this is obvious. I can’t exactly jump on the self-destruction band wagon – especially when postmodernism is in itself a metanarrative”Although I hadn’t fully grasped the idea of participation yet, the use of the vocabulary in a grounded sense is something uncommon to the whole of my work.  I know what a metanarrative is.  Aliya said made a comment in class that postmodernism is in itself a metanarrative.  Understanding at that gave me a better interpretation of Fight Club and Tyler Durden’s creation.  In the next paragraph I go on to say, “On p 46 the bell hop at the narrator’s apt building says “Young people, they think they want the whole world” – the world and whatever they think of it is an image – a warped sense of history, or an image/simulation of history; the pastiche. They think they want the image, but if they knew what they wanted then maybe they wouldn’t want it? Young people can’t know what they want because the want isn’t real anymore”This crisis of a loss of identity parallel’s Baudrillard’s shift to the hyperreality.  Even though it is impossible to ever know what the ‘real’ really is because everything is culturized, according to Jameson, I am able to walk away without a cynical view of the world.  I think that Hutcheon would say ‘yes, yes you are correct- so what do we have left to deal with?’.  Young people do know what they want, but it is the objective of the postmodern to let them know why. 

Commenting on Christine’s Blog post Sherman Film Stills

                 I had just read Hannah and Esther’s blogs before I got to Christine’s.  I was trying to work through some of my confusion with the subject/object. I wrote “You say that catcalling may be a way of putting the woman back into the role of the object. SO rather than having the freedom to do whatever you want as a subject the object knows its role? Because it is being assigned?”.  I like this because I am not questioning her ideas (which is not unacceptable) but I am using questioning to gain a greater understanding of how the male gaze she was talking about helped her better understand the piece.  I also like the comment because it shows my ability to construct knowledge by building off of the ideas of others. 

Commenting on Alex’s Don’t Quote me on it, But

          I am not one to argue, especially when I don’t know what I’m talking about.  That’s a lie.  I argue all the time whether or not I know what I’m talking about- that’s how I make sense of things.  I was struggling with accepting the reality of the postmodern world when I read Alex’s post.  I wanted people to join my party, “Do you accept that there is no truth? How far would it apply, or is it an all in/out/fold situation?” trying to point out the lack of logic in postmodernism.  My argument may be weak, as I now understand postmodernism, but I like it because it shows a common thread of frustration among us.  I wasn’t verbally attacking Alex in any way but I think by venting my frustration on his post I was able to highlight a common argument against postmodernism that “pointing at something that is unpresentable- it seems like a feeble excuse to try and represent something too abstract for the mind to grasp”.

An exemplary piece:  Esther’s Cindy Sherman- This is woman (?)- warning, graphic

            I liked Esther’s piece because she does a good job of relating all three texts Lost in the Funhouse, Written on the Body, and Fight Club to Sherman’s work focusing on a particular postmodern concept; fragmentation.  Esther writes, “he is never able to fulfill this desire or make true this image, because even when he tries to touch Magda, he always “moved clear “in the nick of time”” (225), thereby avoiding being trapped by the ‘gaping maw’ that is female sexuality.”  She also states, “In Written on the Body, there is a continued struggle between the act of sex with a female and the dangerous power of female sexuality. The narrator is constantly seeking a new relationship, but soon feels as if he or she has been disenfranchised by the power that the women’s sexuality provides for them.”  Esther also goes on to speak about Fight Club “For the narrator in Fight Club,  the prospect of being sucked into the vortex of female sexuality is so frightening that he cannot be intimately involved with Marla without creating a separate personality specially designed to be so ‘manly’ that he will not be affected by the power of the female”.  Her ability to make these connections among the texts is an extraordinary feat.  It’s nice to be able to make this thread.  Associating a postmodern principle over a variety of text is something that we need to do in order to develop our own definitions of postmodernism.  I am impressed with her abililty to move through each piece making her point quickly.    

Making goals and achieving them…

            -My first goal is to be more open minded towards postmodernism.  In order to do this I must be willing to accept that there is no one definition for postmodernism.  Once I’ve done that I can draw one for myself and rather than solely relying one theorist’s ideas to orchestrate my own I can become the cyborg again.

            -My second goal is to be able to create something postmodern.  I want to have a postmodern idea.  This may not come for some time, but I want to find my own pony and ride it.  I can do this if I a lot myself enough time to do so.  I want to look at other art forms to find ways of exploiting representation.  This is a huge goal, but not impossible.

            -Lastly, I’d like to be able to develop a list of key terms that I can keep in my wallet when I talk about postmodernism.  I know the terms, but not like the back of my hand.  I may sound confident, but I’m also a good salesman.  My method to vocabulary recovery is to hone in on my classmate’s posts.  I know where to go for concrete dictionary term interpretations.  Knowing where to resource will help me achieve this goal.  

Posts 

1.  Malpas Part 1- http://bastianm.wordpress.com/2007/09/03/malpas-part-1/

2.  Elgin and Written on the Body Part 1-

http://bastianm.wordpress.com/2007/09/08/elgin-and-written-on-the-body-part-1/

3.  The Subject Change-http://bastianm.wordpress.com/2007/09/12/33/

4.  The End of Winterson-http://bastianm.wordpress.com/2007/09/14/the-end-of-the-winterson/

5.  What is Postmodernism?  Good Question.- http://bastianm.wordpress.com/2007/09/18/what-is-post-modernism-good-question/

6.  Response to Fight Club in Bad Form-http://bastianm.wordpress.com/2007/09/21/response-to-fight-club/

7.  PMOD Jameson Style-http://bastianm.wordpress.com/2007/09/25/pmod-jameson-style/

8.  I Can’t Fight This Feeling Anymore-http://bastianm.wordpress.com/2007/09/26/i-cant-fight-this-feeling-anymore/

9.  A Cat Fight-http://bastianm.wordpress.com/2007/09/30/39/

10.  The Sacrifice of Three Space Monkeys- http://bastianm.wordpress.com/2007/10/03/the-sacrifice-of-three-space-monkeys/

11.  Settling a Fight-http://bastianm.wordpress.com/2007/10/08/settling-a-fight/

12.  Sherman is a Lovely Lady-  http://bastianm.wordpress.com/2007/10/09/sherman-is-a-lovely-lady/

Comments

1.  Alex’s Post 1- September 5

2.  Alex’s Don’t Quote Me On It But- September 18

3.  Christine’s Sherman’s Film Stills- October 12 

4.  Christine’s Jameson- September 27 

5.  Esther’s Cindy Sherman- this is woman (?)–warning, graphic- October 12 

6.  Esther’s subjectivity in Written on the Body- September 12 

7.  Hannah’s Cindy Sherman- October 12 

8.  Misti’s Me- modern or postmodern?- September 5  

9.  Misti’s “I AM Man!!!”- October 12 

10.  Tammy’s Jameson’s theory on Postmodernism- September 27

Sherman is a Lovely Lady

I looked at these photos in the computer lab.  I couldn’t help but think that my neighbors were concerned for my well being.  Unfortunately, I had to stop once I got to the pointing dog, or whatever that yoga move is called. 

Still #13

It’s a black and white photo- the black and white photo makes us feel that the picture is old.  The form here – the black and white photograph – tailors our reaction to the piece.  It’s serious.  The black and white make it seem like an old photograph taken for evidence.  Is she stealing the book?  Her attire makes it seem as though it’s set in the fifties, but I’ll bet that the books on that shelf aren’t any older than 1970 (or at least the one she’s grabbing for).  She’s grabbing for a book off the top shelf.  Maybe she’s shelving a book.  Maybe she’s the librarian.  She is mighty attractive in this photo.  I don’t really know anywhere else to go with analyzing this photograph.  Is the blonde bombshell worried about being caught reading?   Maybe the blonde bombshell is wondering if anyone is still paying attention to her now that she is attempting to use her brain- this comments on the Marilyn Monroe syndrome.  This is the nature in which we hold Ms. Monroe…

Still #21

Sherman is the business woman.  The black and white photo makes it seem like it was once again taken a long time ago, maybe at the birth of the working woman.  She is surrounded by all of this tall buildings and looks disgusted.  I wonder what building those are behind her.  When were they built?  Do they have any other significance other than that they are phallic symbols?  It is a disgusted look like ‘I can’t believe I have to live with this’.  It’s the hat that makes me think she is a working woman- or the jacket I guess.  We identify her as the working woman because of these items whereas a man, at this time (the time being generated by Sherman; 50’s/60’s) would be dressed in a jacket and hat normally.  The phrase working man does not seem familiar to me.  If this setting is a modern setting and Sherman was wearing modern clothing then I don’t think I would have as easily identified her as a working woman.  I definitely wouldn’t have characterized her as struggling.

Still #7

I like this one.  It seems a bit harder to analyze though.  We’ve got the whole black and white thing going on again.  She’s at a hotel, I think somewhere in Mexico because only Mexicans are allowed to siesta like that.  She’s hung-over after something she had to get dressed up for- possibly a funeral?  Her wedding?  Wedding.  I assume it’s not the greatest hotel because of the poor Mexican.  What’s different about this picture is that she’s looking at the camera.  She’s looking at herself taking a picture of herself.  This is me remembering my honeymoon.  There is a bed in there which alludes to some kind of sexual behavior, but I don’t think she’s a prostitute.  There is nothing here that I can use to displace the time.  She seems caught by surprise. 

This one’s going no where. 

Rereading what I just wrote I guess I focussed on the displacement of masculinity, how we as a culture define ourselves in history, and nostalgia. 

Settling a fight

I don’t know if I’m giving Fight Club one last kick in the testicles or if it’s got me.  The movie rental is still sitting on my bedroom floor accruing late fees.  If I blow up Hollywood video will my movie rental history disappear? 

I realize now that I had been taking the chaos part of post modernism too literally.  I didn’t realize what Tyler Durden was creating.  I was buying in to the ideology he was creating, not realizing that it was in fact an ideology.  The schizophrenic critiques the identity that Tyler is shaping for him.  He was just along for the ride, much the way we are situated in capitalism.  As long as we realize it does that make it ok?  If we consciously participate in the controlling acts of capitalism does that make us smarter people?  We can’t escape it.  Resisting it is just as controlling.  I don’t think capitalism cares if we comment on it.  I  don’t think history cares if we discredit it.  It still happens.  Grazing will not stop for those who are knowledgeable and those who are oblivious.   Metaphoridus Confusinous.

What I have a problem with is the availability to the general public.  Who can participate in the postmodern?  Supposedly everyone can.  I can’t yet because I don’t get it 100%.  Is the word ‘participate’ up for discussion?  Or is the word ‘who’?   Meaning, is the participation willing or unwilling and does it matter and do they know?  And meaning (for the who) is it rather the content that is participating.  Is it the ‘what’ meaning that anything is game in the ideological realm of whatever?

I know what I’m trying to ask.  Not really, but really.

The Sacrifice of Three Space Monkeys

Esther, Melissa, and Michael

 

We chose religion.  The three of us took the task of mapping God upon our shoulders.  We were Joe’s righteous determination.  Working towards finding a thematic principle in Palahniuk’s Fight Club we came across several Buddhist and Christian notions as well as many other general references to higher life and clarity.  Sifting through the mass of information collected we decided to focus our attention on the religious act of sacrifice.   Before we begin we’d like to show you what we had to work with and what we chose to leave behind.  We now present to you the mixed detritus; the left over nuts, bolts and washers.  Maybe you can use what’s left over. 

 

Unfinished- In the Catholic Church (and it may be true and most possibly is true in other religions) kissing the priest’s hand is an act of devotion.  The Cross is kissed, pictures of Mary, saints etc are all game for this sign of one’s faith.  The burn on the narrator’s hand is described as Tyler’s kiss.  The narrator is wearing it as a symbol of trust.  On page 74 Tyler says “you’re a step closer to hitting bottom” which we thought would be a common religious theme.

            Marla has hit rock bottom “she told me, [is that] she can die at any moment” so the narrator explains (108).  She is something to aim for; a sort of disciple, witnessing the faith.  Backing up a bit the narrator says “I’m starting to wonder if Tyler and Marla are the same person” getting towards that ‘I am the Father, son, and Holy Spirit’ trinity idea.  Trying not to get too far off topic we can move on to the focus of our discussion.   

 

Cooking- At the end of  Ch 9 referring to the space monkeys shot into space Tyler says “Without their death, their pain, without their sacrifice…we would have nothing to do” (74) .  Sacrifice in this instance furthers one’s intellectual enlightenment (space exploration).  The narrator’s sacrifice, in this instance was the giving up of the coping mechanism for pain.  We decided not to focus on the religious act of the kiss.  Tyler says that “Soap and Human sacrifice go hand in hand” (75) and “how the first soap was made of heroes” (78).  It is the idea of helping one cleanse the soul.  The narrator is sacrificing his will over life.  He is in fact offering up his identity (somewhat unwillingly) through Fight Club.  What makes a sacrifice a sacrifice?  Does a sacrifice have to be a willing sacrifice?  Is the purpose of the sacrifice to reach enlightenment because before this act the narrator thought that what he was “feeling [was] premature enlightenment” (70)?  Sacrifice gets you somewhere?  Tyler says “only after you’ve lost everything…you’re free to do anything” meaning that one can’t just sacrifice something, but must sacrifice everything (70).  To sacrifice everything is to lose one’s identity. 

            Here is where we began to find a common thread amongst the texts we’ve already discussed.  In The Funhouse we tangled with the question ‘who is the fun house fun for if not the lovers?’ and thought about the role of masculinity.  In Written on the Body we had a hard time getting past the ambiguity of the main character’s gender and the postmodern idea of love.  Describing how the man is supposed to cope with his changing gender role and how someone is supposed to exist in a love relationship in a universal existence is impossible, unimaginable, indescribable, terrifying and therefore un-presentable.  What is Enlightenment?  How is Enlightenment?  How does one reach Enlightenment?  Well we have a lot of different metanarratives to choose from, why not postmodern self-destruction?  What kind of Enlightenment can we reach through sacrificing everything we know about ourselves including our bodies?  What is Higher is un-presentable.  The truth is un-presentable.  If Tyler says “because only through destroying myself can I discover the greater power of my spirit” (110) then how many of us can fully describe themselves doing this?  The text(s) only help us by pointing to an idea. 

 

Doing the group proper justice in capturing their thoughts on paper is almost impossible.  Feel free to add or clarify; to make the ideas more presentable.