Lexia to Perplexia: Metaphor for Humanity?

Like others, I am trying to understand the method behind the madness in this creation. There were the four sections to the work, and I focused on the first, “The Process of Attachment.” This section frequently showed diagrams about the I-terminal, and I believe there was a human story behind all of the punctuation and technical vocabulary. One phrase said, “At the termin.all of hum.andity—possessed by a remotional attachment to terminals elsewhere” (Memmott). Does this mean we (humanity=hum.andity) are connected in a way determined by or similar to the technology that we use? The program froze on another screen (intentionally or not, I do not know), which said, among other things, “Cyborganic protocol is interimacy” (Memmott). This, also, seems to imply the merging of the cyber and organic worlds and the unique state of intimacy that arises from the combination. Also, grids showed up at various points, seeming to allude to the constructed underpinnings of the game/presentation going on. Another important symbol was an eye, which often led to new scenes, once clicked; does this say how it is actually human will that can still at least, in part, direct the processes of technology? If so, it would be commenting on the role of Manovich’s automation trait of new media and asserting that “human intentionality” (32) is at least partially involved in the technological process; symbolized through the eye, it had some power to direct the series of events, but not all power. Positive and negative signs surrounding the eye on one screen could have been about emotion or quantity. Really, the symbolism was tricky, although still interesting. A further comment: there were moving lines as well, which I am not sure if we were supposed to interact with, but they definitely added to the overwhelming hypermediacy and to the general “perplexia” of the situation.

Throughout all of these reflections, I am still curious to know what the point is. If it is trying to show the relation between human thought and computer commands or how they influence each other, I think that is very valid, but I could appreciate this piece a lot more if I knew more of what it was trying to prove or display.