I don't know what I'm going to write my essay on yet; therefore this blog is bound to be lame. I'm sorry if I ramble, I'm just trying to get ideas flowing.
I haven't read anything extra pertaining to this novel but I have studied the Holocaust quite a bit. I have even been to the Holocaust museum in Washington D.C. I find it very interesting and I'm sure I can find something to write about...
IDEA! Okay, so I was thinking about doing something with those comics that we got in class. I want to use the part that talks about how people just see themselves in everything they look at. And also when he talks about comics and why they make them so simple. So my thinking is that I can relate this to Maus by talking about how they are wearing the masks sometimes and then other times they are actually portrayed as mice. So, I kinda have a lot to say about this. Like; what's the point of making them mice? what are they representing? is it making it more impersonal or maybe the exact opposite? I'm not sure if I could do an entire essay on it or if I would end up talking in circles, but we'll see. I want to include it in some way for sure. Even if it's a small portion.
Well, I think that's it for me and ideas right now.
PEACE.
Wednesday, December 16, 2009
Sunday, November 15, 2009
My brain is turning to mush...
Hold it right there! I find this article to be extremely ironic and hypocritical. Carr mentions how he has "been spending a lot of time online, searching and surfing and sometimes adding to the great databases of the Internet." It's totally crazy to me that he is even complaining about the Internet when he is clearly on it all the time. And when Carr talks about attention span and how the Internet is supposedly shortening it he talks about it for more than the time I can even focus on it. And what's more than that?! He wrote and published the article on the Internet!! I can't get over that. Haha.
Anyway, I think that sadly this article is pretty spot on. I wish it wasn't; but honestly, what am I doing right now? Not reading Cat's Cradle like I should be. I'm writing a BLOG on the INTERNET. But I'll continue on. So, I think that there is a point where we humans should stop learning and stop trying to figure everything out. And I believe that this point is being reached by the Internet. There is so much information out there. There is no way that we could ever take in all of it! But I don't believe that we're meant to. And this right here is where people split on this issue I believe. Some people are all about progress no matter what the cost. Knowledge just for the sake of knowledge. But then there are those people that learn because they like to learn and are genuinely interested in what they're learning. The problem is, the people that just learn a bunch of stuff are some of the people that are clogging up the Internet. I don't think that the Internet is a bad thing I just think that everyone needs to know when is enough is enough; personally.
The Internet also takes away an individuals ability to think and process things for his or her self. When you read something on the Internet it is normally in a quick and easy form to read and therefore you get all the information you need. Right upfront. This isn't good. Although we have all this information we don't know how to use it anymore because the thinking and analyzing has been destroyed. That is why I find the following statement from the article totally false, " The more pieces of information we can 'access' and the faster we can extract their gist, the more productive we become as thinkers."
This whole thing is frustrating to me because it kinda feels like man is just giving up and okay with the fact that this quote from Carr's article might actually become truth, "The human brain is just an outdated computer that needs a faster processor and a bigger hard drive."
Sorry if some of this makes not sense whatsoever. I'm dead tired. Woo color guard. HA!
Peace.
Anyway, I think that sadly this article is pretty spot on. I wish it wasn't; but honestly, what am I doing right now? Not reading Cat's Cradle like I should be. I'm writing a BLOG on the INTERNET. But I'll continue on. So, I think that there is a point where we humans should stop learning and stop trying to figure everything out. And I believe that this point is being reached by the Internet. There is so much information out there. There is no way that we could ever take in all of it! But I don't believe that we're meant to. And this right here is where people split on this issue I believe. Some people are all about progress no matter what the cost. Knowledge just for the sake of knowledge. But then there are those people that learn because they like to learn and are genuinely interested in what they're learning. The problem is, the people that just learn a bunch of stuff are some of the people that are clogging up the Internet. I don't think that the Internet is a bad thing I just think that everyone needs to know when is enough is enough; personally.
The Internet also takes away an individuals ability to think and process things for his or her self. When you read something on the Internet it is normally in a quick and easy form to read and therefore you get all the information you need. Right upfront. This isn't good. Although we have all this information we don't know how to use it anymore because the thinking and analyzing has been destroyed. That is why I find the following statement from the article totally false, " The more pieces of information we can 'access' and the faster we can extract their gist, the more productive we become as thinkers."
This whole thing is frustrating to me because it kinda feels like man is just giving up and okay with the fact that this quote from Carr's article might actually become truth, "The human brain is just an outdated computer that needs a faster processor and a bigger hard drive."
Sorry if some of this makes not sense whatsoever. I'm dead tired. Woo color guard. HA!
Peace.
Sunday, November 8, 2009
The Hoenikkers' Graves; Who is the Most Important?
Hmmm...I don't really know what I wanna talk about this week. Nothing is really interesting to me right now. I'm gonna start talking about some stuff in Cat's Cradle I guess and see if I can't get any new ideas flowing.
Okay, so I find the tombstones of the Hoenikker parents to be quite interesting. The first question on one of the handouts we got this week talked about it and I wish we would have gotten through the questions because they're interesting. Anyway, I first think that it was interesting when John asked where the Hoenikker plot was the cemetery custodian simply told him "Can't miss it. It's got the biggest marker in the place." Now, when John shows up at the plot he is expecting to see Felix Hoenikker's grave. But what he actually finds is Angela Hoenikker's grave. All the children had written something on the stone or marked it in some way. It showed and love and that she was not forgotten even though she was dead. The tombstone was "..alabaster phallus twenty feet high and three feet thick." This is a huge memorial and seems suitable for such an amazing scientist. But it's not Felix's. How much bigger could his be? When John found Dr. Hoenikker's grave was just "..a marble cube forty centimeters on each side. 'Father,' it said." Shockingly Felix's tombstone was really small and the only thing it said on it was father. The narrator later find out that it was in his will that this be his memorial. But why? Why would he want something so small? Especially when his wife had something so big. Is this suggesting something? Was Angela more than just a wife? Maybe she had a part in everything Felix did. Maybe she did something even bigger and more important.
We don't really know much about Angela right now so I'm interested in finding out more and hopefully figuring this out. It's very interesting to me and I'm pretty sure that it has a meaning and it isn't just some stupid detail. If it was there wouldn't be two chapters on it.
Peace.
Okay, so I find the tombstones of the Hoenikker parents to be quite interesting. The first question on one of the handouts we got this week talked about it and I wish we would have gotten through the questions because they're interesting. Anyway, I first think that it was interesting when John asked where the Hoenikker plot was the cemetery custodian simply told him "Can't miss it. It's got the biggest marker in the place." Now, when John shows up at the plot he is expecting to see Felix Hoenikker's grave. But what he actually finds is Angela Hoenikker's grave. All the children had written something on the stone or marked it in some way. It showed and love and that she was not forgotten even though she was dead. The tombstone was "..alabaster phallus twenty feet high and three feet thick." This is a huge memorial and seems suitable for such an amazing scientist. But it's not Felix's. How much bigger could his be? When John found Dr. Hoenikker's grave was just "..a marble cube forty centimeters on each side. 'Father,' it said." Shockingly Felix's tombstone was really small and the only thing it said on it was father. The narrator later find out that it was in his will that this be his memorial. But why? Why would he want something so small? Especially when his wife had something so big. Is this suggesting something? Was Angela more than just a wife? Maybe she had a part in everything Felix did. Maybe she did something even bigger and more important.
We don't really know much about Angela right now so I'm interested in finding out more and hopefully figuring this out. It's very interesting to me and I'm pretty sure that it has a meaning and it isn't just some stupid detail. If it was there wouldn't be two chapters on it.
Peace.
Monday, November 2, 2009
Postmodernism in Cat's Cradle
Okay, I've read through 27 and I definitely think that Cat's Cradle contains postmodern theme. Knowledge for the sake of knowledge is the job of the scientists in this book. But this time it isn't the society as a whole that is focused on progress just for progress' sake. It's the individual. There are many people that call the scientists crazy but these people just see things in a different light than most people. One of the main characters in the book, the deceased Dr. Hoenikker, is presented as this insane and ridiculous man. But is that really the case? He was extremely intelligent and thought in ways that most people cannot even begin to understand.
When Jonah (John) was talking with Sandra she recalls a lecture from Dr. Hoenikker in which he explained the trouble with the world. "The trouble with the world was, that people were still superstitious instead of scientific. He [Dr. Hoenikker] said if everybody would study science more, there wouldn't be all the trouble there was." This explains why Dr. Hoenikker was so different from others. He was so worked up in just figuring things out because they're interesting and he wanted to know the answer. The postmodern view is presented in the way that he lived. It says that he wasn't really connected with his family and this makes sense because he was just interested in the results of experiments.
The scientists might thing differently than others but that doesn't mean that they should be seen as weird people. Yet, in this society they are. While Jonah was with Dr. Breed he saw a dirty woman who "..hated people who thought too much. At that moment, she struck me as an appropriate representative for almost all mankind." The outcast that the scientist becomes in this society is ridiculous. They shouldn't discriminate against someone if they just use what was given to them.
Okay, I know this blog is scatter-brained and some of the ideas aren't completely explained but that's just where I am right now in thinking about this book.
Peace.
When Jonah (John) was talking with Sandra she recalls a lecture from Dr. Hoenikker in which he explained the trouble with the world. "The trouble with the world was, that people were still superstitious instead of scientific. He [Dr. Hoenikker] said if everybody would study science more, there wouldn't be all the trouble there was." This explains why Dr. Hoenikker was so different from others. He was so worked up in just figuring things out because they're interesting and he wanted to know the answer. The postmodern view is presented in the way that he lived. It says that he wasn't really connected with his family and this makes sense because he was just interested in the results of experiments.
The scientists might thing differently than others but that doesn't mean that they should be seen as weird people. Yet, in this society they are. While Jonah was with Dr. Breed he saw a dirty woman who "..hated people who thought too much. At that moment, she struck me as an appropriate representative for almost all mankind." The outcast that the scientist becomes in this society is ridiculous. They shouldn't discriminate against someone if they just use what was given to them.
Okay, I know this blog is scatter-brained and some of the ideas aren't completely explained but that's just where I am right now in thinking about this book.
Peace.
Sunday, October 4, 2009
Essay Stuff
Wow. This topic is so broad! I don't really know where to start. I'm thinking about so many different things while reading through BNW I don't know what I even want to write about yet. But I don't think that I can pick exactly what I want to write about until I finish the book. So, until then I'll just throw out some ideas of what I'm thinking about right now.
- Happiness-is it truly happiness? If they are really happy is it okay that the way they become happy is artificial (soma)?
- Bernard-there are so many aspects about Bernard that are intriguing yet confusing. I still need to learn more about this character but I know I want to include him in my writing.
- Grand narrative-what does the society really believe? How is there Ford when this is supposed to be postmodern?
- Savages-why such a stark contrast? What are they trying to say about our culture? The BNW society?
- People-have no value. They're being engineered and altered to create the "perfect" world. Something wrong with this picture? Where are the morals?
So, these are some of the main ideas that I have been thinking about while reading BNW. I don't know which I'm going to choose for my essay but for now I'm mostly thinking of combining the happiness and people one. I think that my thesis would be something like, 'In Huxley's Brave New World people are happy all the time, but they're genetically engineered this way; is this humane or even happiness for that matter?'
The other texts that I would use would definitely be Postmodernism, other people's blogs, and I'm not sure about the other source. I'm sure I'll find one.
I'm sorry this blog is so boring! Haha.
Sunday, September 27, 2009
Ahhhh!! My Brain.
First of all let me start with what a headache this all is! It takes a lot of concentration to understand everything and then link it together. I think there is a point at which are just thinking too much. I don't believe that we're ever going to have all the answers nor are we supposed to. Anyway, I think that this whole postmodern/BNW thing might be reaching that point soon.
However, I think that I have a good explanation as to why the postmodern condition doesn't incorporate faith in the grand narrative. And for that matter, the lack of a grand narrative. I think that it got to the point where people didn't think that we could have one belief for everyone because there was always someone who didn't agree with the majority. But this doesn't mean that the grand narrative should just disappear. Postmodernists view this new era as "..see[ing] no reason for a center. Instead they favor a decentering-a play of chance, antiform, and surface." (18). They don't see the need for one view or belief. Even though it seems like it would be easier this way. Just because there are people in a country, let's say, that disagree doesn't mean that they should change the whole nation for those few people. Different countries are founded on different religions and beliefs and if you don't believe in the religion or the culture in your country you can move. I'm not saying it's bad to have a melting pot or anything I just think that people need to realize some places are more Christian than others, or Muslim just for example.
I think that wars have led to this belief in postmodernists. They probably feel that by simply letting everyone have their own belief without having to force something else down their throats would be peaceful even when people with opposing views are living together.
All of this doesn't mean that disagreement is a bad thing. In fact, it's necessary. Think about if there wasn't opposition there would be no point! If everyone was the same it would be really boring and pointless. No one would ever learn anything.
I'm sorry that this blog is so jumbled. I'm trying t0 get my ideas down as best as I can but this topic is so controversial and crazy!
However, I think that I have a good explanation as to why the postmodern condition doesn't incorporate faith in the grand narrative. And for that matter, the lack of a grand narrative. I think that it got to the point where people didn't think that we could have one belief for everyone because there was always someone who didn't agree with the majority. But this doesn't mean that the grand narrative should just disappear. Postmodernists view this new era as "..see[ing] no reason for a center. Instead they favor a decentering-a play of chance, antiform, and surface." (18). They don't see the need for one view or belief. Even though it seems like it would be easier this way. Just because there are people in a country, let's say, that disagree doesn't mean that they should change the whole nation for those few people. Different countries are founded on different religions and beliefs and if you don't believe in the religion or the culture in your country you can move. I'm not saying it's bad to have a melting pot or anything I just think that people need to realize some places are more Christian than others, or Muslim just for example.
I think that wars have led to this belief in postmodernists. They probably feel that by simply letting everyone have their own belief without having to force something else down their throats would be peaceful even when people with opposing views are living together.
All of this doesn't mean that disagreement is a bad thing. In fact, it's necessary. Think about if there wasn't opposition there would be no point! If everyone was the same it would be really boring and pointless. No one would ever learn anything.
I'm sorry that this blog is so jumbled. I'm trying t0 get my ideas down as best as I can but this topic is so controversial and crazy!
Sunday, September 20, 2009
People Are Nothing
In Brave New World Huxley presents a world where humans are of no real value. They are genetically engineered and produced in different ranks just to keep the world in some sort of order. They don't have families, parents, homes, or any of the traditional human values. They are taught just to do their jobs and enjoy them. The world as we know it is completely ridiculous in their eyes.
The motto that is used a lot in this scary world is "Every one belongs to every one else." It's normal for them to be with multiple people at the same time. In fact, if you stay to long with one person that is considered dangerous because you might actually build up feelings for that single person. A person is not valuable in this culture. No one is saved only for one other person, but everyone is shared.
I think that this world is completely sick. People are important and human relationships should be treasured. I also think it's stupid and disgusting to engineer people. So far I'm just really irritated and disgusted with this book.
The motto that is used a lot in this scary world is "Every one belongs to every one else." It's normal for them to be with multiple people at the same time. In fact, if you stay to long with one person that is considered dangerous because you might actually build up feelings for that single person. A person is not valuable in this culture. No one is saved only for one other person, but everyone is shared.
I think that this world is completely sick. People are important and human relationships should be treasured. I also think it's stupid and disgusting to engineer people. So far I'm just really irritated and disgusted with this book.
Sunday, September 6, 2009
Does It Really Matter?
What do we put in history books? What do we leave out? What IS history? There are so many things that have influenced our country, but not everything is able to be written down in a collected source. There comes a point when you have to pick and choose what goes in the books to be studied. There will always be a discrepancy between publishers but nothing will ever satisfy everyone.
During the high school years students are taught to learn all about the subject they are studying, memorize it, and then regurgitate it for the tests. This does not allow for true learning. So, in that case what does it matter what is put in the books if it is just being used to pass a test? If someone is really passionate about a subject they will research it further. This would be knowledge for the sake of knowledge. Because everyone has a specific area that they flourish in everyone will have knowledge of different things and together we can learn a lot more than we ever could on our own.
But if it does not matter what we put in history books is it even important that we know our history? The answer to this question is yes, of course. If we don't know what has happened in the past how can we prevent it from happening again? It is important to know our nation's history even if we don't know every single event that has happened.
So my overall point is that it is impossible to include everything in history books. The things that cannot be included are still out there and odds are that someone knows enough about them to share their wealth of information with you.
During the high school years students are taught to learn all about the subject they are studying, memorize it, and then regurgitate it for the tests. This does not allow for true learning. So, in that case what does it matter what is put in the books if it is just being used to pass a test? If someone is really passionate about a subject they will research it further. This would be knowledge for the sake of knowledge. Because everyone has a specific area that they flourish in everyone will have knowledge of different things and together we can learn a lot more than we ever could on our own.
But if it does not matter what we put in history books is it even important that we know our history? The answer to this question is yes, of course. If we don't know what has happened in the past how can we prevent it from happening again? It is important to know our nation's history even if we don't know every single event that has happened.
So my overall point is that it is impossible to include everything in history books. The things that cannot be included are still out there and odds are that someone knows enough about them to share their wealth of information with you.
Subscribe to:
Comments (Atom)