Blog that starts off at one idea and just strays and strays... (That's kinda what I talk about, I think...)

Is Google making us stupid? I don't know if that's what I'd say, but it (or more precisely, the internet) is definitely doing something. It is changing us, changing the way we think, the way we are. The level on which we exist consciously as been altered, our ability to focus as nearly disappeared. As I read this article, I was astonished by how many ways it seemed to connect to my self. The main thing is the way the internet is structured, or...I don't know if that's the word I'm looking for, but anyway... I mean, the internet's... image, the way this image has absorbed all other media, making everything imitate it. "It injects the medium’s content with hyperlinks, blinking ads, and other digital gewgaws, and it surrounds the content with the content of all the other media it has absorbed... The result is to scatter our attention and diffuse our concentration." The internet is so full of information, it lessens the amount of actual thinking or contemplation going on. Just as people skip from link to link, not focusing long on any one website, we now think in the same ways as that; our ability to be distracted is incredible. In fact, as I was reading this article (and I have no idea how I managed to finish it), I was extremely distacted by the use of the word "gewgaws." Don't ask me why; I just was. I guess it's just a weird word. But anyways, that is just one example of the lack of ability to concentrate. Our desire (and yes, it seems to be somewhat of a compulsion, a force) for distraction has infiltrated our brains. As you know, procrastination is a huge problem among students, many either do not finish their homework, or they finish just in time the morning it's due. And altough it may be said that they don't have time, it's not true. So much time is wasted, all the time, due to a lack of focus. Everything is postponed, always. For example, I woke up this morning, "intending" to do my homework. So what do I do? I waste hours doing basically nothing, waiting until I have the least amount of time and the most amount of pressure with which to do my homework. Of course, this occurs all the time, and with most obligations, or with almost anything at all. Even when working or otherwise focusing on something, our attention will turn to something else soon enough. I think the best example of the never-ending maze that is the internet, a maze which our brains will soon be modeled after, is Wikipedia. This monstrous website is the labyrinth that can occupy you forever, should you ever foolishly decide to click on one of the links. Oh yes, there, time looses all meaning, and you soon forget what brought you there... If we allow ourselves to become so consumed by the ways of the internet, then nothing will ever get accomplished again. Oh dear. You don't even know how many times I was distracted just writing this blog. The internet will take over (is taking over) our minds. Beware...It has begun...

I caught up on the reading, at least.

Good morning everyone. Guess who's still going to get their blog done on time? I am. Hooray. Forgive me if I make little to no sense in this blog, as my brain definitely does not like working in the mornings. I must confess, I'm not positive yet quite what the deal is with the whole post-postmodernism thing. I read the article, but yeah... So, I'm not going to talk about that. Nope. I'm going to talk about... Cat's Cradle. And not just the book, but the string game for which it is named, which happens to be mentioned a number of times. Alrighty. Cat's Cradle, the never-ending game. The more it is played, the more complicated the string becomes,with a greater number of x's. Apparently, it is supposed to look like a cat and it's cradle, I guess, but it really doesn't. In this book, this game seems to represent things that are a constant search for something, as well as things Newt thinks have no meaning. Newt never saw any cat or its cradle in the string when his father shoved it in front of his face when he was little. A number of times, now, he has brought it up to argue a point against something. For example, when they were talking about religion, Newt simply asked, "See the cat? See the Cradle?" He implies that there is nothing to be found, and although people keep practicing religion, it is foolish to do so. Aside from Newt and his sensitivity regarding the game, the cat's cradle seems to be tied to the idea of "pure science," or "pure research." The goal of this is to increase knowledge. It is not to better mankind, or to use the knowledge. The knowledge, or "truth," is only to be used to gain even more knowledge. Dr. Breed even states that "the more truth we have to work with, the richer we become." Their use of knowledge to search for knowledge is a never-ending game, as there is no single truth that they could discover which would give them all the knowledge there is. And the knowledge isn't even used for anything else. Essentially, this "pure research" is about as productive and time consuming as playing cat's cradle. Okays, I'm done. See you all in a couple of hours...

Cat's Cradle...Chapters 1-7...Postmodernism?

Alright. Postmodernism, Cat's Cradle. This novel is showing some signs of postmodernism, for sure. Even in how it's written, with the little bitty chapters, feels postmodernistic. I believe the purpose of the chapters is to keep the attention of the reader, so they wouldn't get bored reading an entire normal length chapter. This is like commercials on TV, just a few seconds to fit the attantion span of postmodern people. Another postmodern theme in it is religion, and how it is a grand narrative, and all that. Except, it kind of seems to be the opposite of postmodernism in that respect. This is because Cat's Cradle, so far, looks to be encouraging grand narratives in the form of religion, or beliefs, or what have you. In the beginning of the novel, it says "Live by the foma(harmless untruths) that make you brave and kind and healthy and happy." It basically says that religions can be lies, but it is still good for one to have some sort of philosophy, or belief, or set of morals to center one's life around. The father does not look to do this, though. In fact, the father seems the most postmodernistic part of the book so far. He is basically the epitome of science for the sake of science. He wonders about things, going from one thing to the next, playing with whatever he found interesting at the time. He "plays" with the bomb, but doesn't care about how the knowledge he gains will be used. After the testing of the bomb, when a scientist says to him "Science has now known sin," he replies with "What is sin?" He is removed, detached from others, only looking to learn more. He doesn't understand the concept, because he doesn't see-or care, more like- how the science will be used, he just wants to experiment, discover, learn. Acquire knowledge for the sake of knowledge. It doesn't matter what it is about. One day it's bombs, the next, turtles. He even describes it himself in his Nobel Prize acceptance speech as "dawdling like an eight-year-old on a spring morning on his way to school." That is just how the father is, and it seems quite Postmodern-like to me.

Brave New World Essay

So, ideas for an essay, hmm? There's so much in this book, I don't even know where to begin. Which is probably why we're supposed to be thinking about this. Right, so if I was going to write an essay about Brave New World, what would it be about?
I suppose I could write about the whole control thing, and lack of individuality. How the government represses the people, keeps them in their places...Especially seeing as we did a lot of discussion on that in class. And if so, I could use 1984 as comparison, and all that good stuff. Maybe contrast surveillance and fear of 1984 with the conditioning of Brave New World. Hmm. Definitely an option.
Or maybe I could write something about religion in Brave New World. Huxley has got some interesting stuff with that. The worship if Ford, the "T," efficiency of the society...and the religions of the "savages." They've turned science into their religion, and they completely look down on all the other religions that existed before they became truly "civilized." I don't know too much yet, and I have not quite finished the book...But there's sure to be more stuff that there would be plenty to base an essay on. Oh, and I could quote from Postmodernism, with the whole Lyotard ideas, and grand narratives and such. Yes, this could work...
And, of course, I may very well not write about one of those topics, as they were really only two. This novel just brings up all kinds of ideas, so who knows what awesome thesis or topics or whatever I might come up with while reading the rest of it, you know? Or even something that I've already thought of, but that I didn't currently remember to add into this blog. Or maybe I did remember, but I just didn't feel like adding it because there's really no need seeing as I've written a pretty good amount anyways. In fact, I think I've already written enough. But anyways, there's a lot of ways that an essay could be written about Brave New World, because it's just so...I don't know, but there's so much that could be talked about in an essay. And Postmodernism and 1984 and quite good potential outside sources...hmmm. We will see. Byes!

Yet Another Post

Time for another terribly interesting post by Cathy, hooray! Just kidding, I know they don't make sense, I just say whatever comes to mind at the moment. Anyways, I must blog again. This time about Postmodernism and narratives and Brave New World and such. So here we go.
Oh, and after writing this just now, I really advise you not to waste your time reading it. This is definitely not the best of posts. Guess I should have slept more this week. Heh...

So...part one of the prompt: what is the function of myths and narratives? The answer to this is simple; myths and narratives exist to explain the unexplained. Humans have never been comfortable with not having an explanation for everything, so when something was not understood, somebody made up an explanation. These reasons usually came in the form of gods of some sorts. Whether it be Thor's hammering causing thunder, or the rain gods being responsible for the good harvest, people have found supernatural beings the simplest way of explaining that which currently cannot be explained.

Okay..random subject change (or not, I don't know yet)? Umm, right. So a metanarrative or grand narrative is a...let's see, a sort of all-encompasing narrative, which is "able to account for, explain and subordinate all lesser, little, local narratives." That's what Postmodernism says, at least. Which means...uh...that it's the dominant narrative. It's the central idea or philosophy, which pretty much covers everything. Like, it gives a central meaning or purpose...and...okay, I totally got this in class, I just think my brain as decided to go on a vacation tonight...

Anyways, apparently postmodernism is the lack in the belief in a grand narrative. In stead, the metanarrative is replaced with micronarratives, many smaller stories which give meaning as opposed to meaning found through the one philosophy. Which, if you think about it, is really a metanarrative in and of itself. People following the idea of not following just one idea...Huh. Well, back to whatever I was trying to say, in the postmodernistic society there is less belief in a central idea, such as religion, because more people choose science and facts over faith and religion. As many of the old stories, myths, and beliefs have been disproved (such as the sun is no longer believed to be pulled across the sky by a god in a chariot, and we know the world is not flat), many more reject (or do not believe so strongly in) the idea of a higher being causing that which we do not understand, and in stead believe that those things will be understood in time, because as science progresses so will our ability to explain what currently has no explaination. And that was a very long and likely grammatically incorrect sentence...Hope you got that..

So...that is all...so sorry to burden you with this craziness that is my blog...post...thoughts...whatever. I really don't know. Hopefully next week I will make more sense! Mmmk bye!

Brave New World

Hello again. The time has come for another blog, this time about the first four chapters of Brave New World. Okay, so this book is really interesting, and I think I'm going to like it, but everything going on in that world inside that book is just craziness. And because I don't really know what other way to write about this, I will try to answer the questions that we were so kindly provided by Mr. Dominguez.
Alright, so first things first. How do I feel about the society depicted in the novel? Well, I think it's... it's just absurd. The way the people are predestined to be a certain class, to like or to hate certain things, it's just unnatural. It's not even that they aren't allowed their own thoughts, as in 1984, it's that they just don't have them, because they were brainwashed as they slept while they were children. And the way the "condition" the babies, it's just horrible. During the demonstration with the flowers and books, the Director says, "now we proceed to rub in the lesson wit a mild electric shock"(21). After frightening the poor things with loud noises when they looked at the flowers and books, they electrocute them...They electrocute babies. All for the sake of maximizing efficiency and productivity. Wow. That's just...Unbelievable. When I read that, I didn't know how to feel. I simply can't imagine anyone doing such a thing. And for it to be normal? No,it's just wrong. Cruel.
Okay, okay, next question. Does it seem like an improvement, or progress? Improvement, absolutely not. Progress? I guess if by progress you mean they use more resources more efficiently. If you meant progress as a society, as people, then no. No way. It is not progress to lessen individuality, emotions, to...essentially grow people for the most smoothly working society, in stead of allowing there to be emotional attachments between people, and allowing for the existence of families.
What is Huxley trying to say? I do not know. I've only read the first four chapters, so I'm still not sure what direction this will be going in. He might try to say that this is the way a society could work better, or he could say that we as a society should try our best to avoid such a future. Or maybe he could be saying something totally different. I think I will have to read some more before I decide on this answer.
And now...does this present a relative critique on today's society? Ummm...I have not thought about this enough, so I think I shall skip it. Hooray!
Okay, lastly, the bit about the end of chapter 3, were it was all skipping around the points of view. That was a little bit confusing, at least for the beginning. Once you could follow who was saying what, though, it wasn't too bad. I think the effect this had was in that it kind of made it so all of that was happening at once, in stead of one person at a time. Like, it kind of brought together that this was all the kind of stuff that was constantly going on in that society; people casually discussing "having" others, children being taught about the evils of pre-efficient (pre-Ford?) times, and how wonderful it is now, babies being brainwashed as they dream...These are all normal parts of this society. As it is skipping around though, and the comments being made are all of the similar, "appropriate" mindset, Bernard Marx stands out more as someone different. His thoughts are against what they were taught; he obviously cares about Lenina, and he hates the way Henry Foster and the other guy are talking about her. This brings attention to Bernard's...uniqueness, and I think it makes it clear that he will be an important figure in the rest of the novel.
Well, that is all. Byes, everybody!

Post Numero Uno

So, I figure I should write this here blog, seeing as it's due quite soon. Hopefully it will be done correctly. It is the first blog, so I'm not positive what I'm going to write, even though we've been given prompts, and had a discussion in class, and all that good stuff. Actually, I think this will be about that discussion that we had while we in the Socratic Circle, seeing as that was quite an interesting experience (to me, at least).
Alrighty. So. As I recall, there was a prompt of some sort that we read, and it was about the history books in Texas. There was debate about what went into the books, and the main issue was whether there should be more about the bible and Christianity in the textbooks, yes? Right. People got quite...well, stirred about their viewpoints, as I think many of you would agree, yeah?
Mmmk, so I may not have actually said anything during that discussion, and I regret that, but I feel like making some comments regarding some of the points I heard on Wednesday.
Firstly, of course the bible, or at least Christianity, must be mentioned in the texts. Those who first settled(and I say settled, not lived, I'm not talking about the Native Americans) here, the colonists whose descendants would one day become the first people of the United States, were very religious. This was one of the most important parts, the foundation, of the lives and the society of the colonists. In order for that to accurately be portrayed in the books, their religion simply must be mentioned.
This is not to say that the books should "present Christianity as an overall force for good--and a key reason for American exceptionalism." No. See, while it is likely impossible to have the books be completely objective in the telling of history, those in charge of putting those books together must do their best to do so. The U.S. History book should be filled with the facts; portraying one religion as a "force of good" is horrendously biased, and absolutely unacceptable. Religion should only be mentioned when it is very relevant to the piece of history, such as the colonists, or the Great Awakening.
However, this does not only apply to religion. Minorities and their places in the text became a quite a discussion as well. The entirety of the history of the U.S. is what the text is to represent, people. Only so much information can fit in the book; things will be left out, there is no doubt. Not all people and all events can be represented, as, unfortunately, it is simply not possible to include all the information. So, when a particular group failed to play a major role in an important part of history, that group is not going to be in the book. Sorry, but that's how it is. In other sections of the text, dealing with other times and places, a large portion may be dedicated to that particular group of people, while others are left out.
Okay...so I totally just lost that train of thought. Hmm. Oh well. Maybe I'll return to it later. For now, I think I'm done with this. I hope that this was enjoyed by whoever read this, or that it wasn't too big of a waste of time, at least. If it was, sorry. Guess I'm not so good at these blogs yet. Hehe. Alrighty, I'll see you guys later. Bye byes.