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!
Sunday, September 27, 2009
Sunday, September 20, 2009
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!
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!
Monday, September 7, 2009
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.
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.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)