I would rate The Dead Poets Society a solid diez [10].
I mean, what else would you like in a movie? You've got Robin Williams, a whole school of over privileged boys, chaos and turmoil, and an underused ideal. This movie, unlike many that have graced us on the big screen, has not only a point but forces us to look at the world "atop a desk". It preaches not only a rarely used state of mind, but an ideal to live by. The idea of "carpe diem" is so simple, live for today and sieze the moment. This film did not need drugs, affairs, or inapropriate language to hold our attention, the ideas it presented were just enough. To say the least, I did not expect what I saw. And I do not expect the movie to influence or inspire others exactly as me, if at all. But I must say that this movie is one for the books. It did not have a traditional hollywood ending. I guess, in a way it did. I mean the events culminate in a defiance against traditionalism and wrongdoing but it was not as grand or as dramatic as some Hollywood endings. I believe the subtle act of standing on a desk instead of all the boys yelling "screw administration" gave it a much better and more respectable ending.
This movie greatly relates to poetry and I believe it was a great way to introduce it to our class. We are all raised with this pre-established notion that poetry is simply a bunch of old queer idealists and untouchable great thinkers who sat down and wrote some lines down. I believed that to study it we merely had to read a sonnet and take it apart. But Robin Williams made me realize that it is much more than that. It is a part of life, a way of life. This movie got me to think outside of the normal assumption, and i believe that it would have been impossible for me to realize this by simply a teacher telling me so.
The Dead Poets Society should be allowed if not advised to be shown in an AP class. We are not some general class to be fed sonnet after sonnet. We must look deeper, not only into poetry already written, but the idea behind poetry. And this movie perfectly demonstrates that.
Wednesday, December 5, 2007
Monday, November 26, 2007
Poem/Song lyrics
"Searchlights"
by Falling Up
by Falling Up
It's like a breath before the dive
It's like the truth after a lie
This flight is taking over
Searchlights in every corner
Like I love you when you're gone
Escaping in the dawn
I swear we'll flood your city
No choice it's what you're getting
If you want to breathe will you just let me know
If you want it, then you'll see it, let me know
Wash away the tears, will you just let me know
Need to see it, then you'll want it, let me know
The secrets in the wind
The rumors now begin
You want to hear the silence
You want the quiet sirens
His blood is like the break
The love you will not take
I swear we'll flood your city
No choice it's what you're getting
If you want to breathe will you just let me know
If you want it, then you'll see it, let me know
Wash away the tears, will you just let me know
Need to see it, then you'll want it, let me know
No one can breathe, no one can see
They are asleep, they will be seen
Asleep
Breakaway the voice is calling
Wake up you're asleep and falling
Not to late to open up your heart
He will heal the shattered hopes
And fly away the broken souls
It's not too late to find out who you are
If you want to breathe will you just let me know
If you want it, then you'll see it, let me know
Wash away the tears, will you just let me know
Need to see it, then you'll want it, let me know
Wednesday, November 14, 2007
post
My first reaction to all the songs by Wilco as a whole was that they sounded a lot alike. There was an occasional more upbeat song thrown in there, but for the most part each song sounded passionate, but mellow and slower. Each song also had the same underlying theme heartbreak, hope, and the lack of hope.
The first song was “Either Way” and started out a lot like the others. It started out slow and gained tempo further into the song but never lost its mood. I feel that this slow and somewhat sad mood helps in the song and how it is reacted by the listeners. This song sounded like it was full of a sad hopefulness. He kept repeating the words “maybe” and “you”. The over usage of the word “maybe” supports the hopeful meaning. And the use of the word “you” in pretty much every one of the Wilco songs makes the songs not sound like they are focusing on the listeners life or experiences but like he is speaking directly to his loved one and kind of like the he isn’t aware of the listeners. In this song he hopes that things will get better.
The Second song was “You Are My Face”. Instead of focusing on a feeling of hope like the previous song, I got a feeling of hopelessness. Instead of the idea “things will get better” it is now “things are never going to get better, so why try?” This song also uses a lot of metaphors. Instead of stating straight out what is going on, he uses a lot of metaphors and literary devices to get a deeper meaning across, perhaps to allow the listener to interpret it the way he wants.
Then there was “Impossible Germany”. Now this song is unlike the previous two. This one instead of being either hopeful, or hopeless is more indignant. It seems to state, “this is how it is, it’s hard, but its going to happen”. This song is more “in your face” than the others. It is not sulking, but stating facts and the reality of it all.
Next was “Side With the Seeds”. This song uses personification and many more literary devices. It seems to be split between hopefulness and hopelessness. “No one wins but the thieves, so why side with anything”. This quote gives of a sense of giving up. It seems to be saying that the situation is impossible to change, its too frivolous, so why bother? Maybe it gives off a tone of one who has given up to the reality of it all. This is ironic because it uses many metaphors and literary devices to get the “reality” idea off.
Then “Please Be Patient With Me” played. I like this song because of the idea “you need to be patient with me”. This song seems to be more realistic in a real-world situation. Overall, I like not only the music but also the messages this band puts out with every song. It is not screamer or in-your-face opinions, but it does all that with a more artistic flare. I also like that, unlike much music today, the words mean so much. With this band, the words hold everything. It is not about having the craziest beat, but the words mean so much.
The first song was “Either Way” and started out a lot like the others. It started out slow and gained tempo further into the song but never lost its mood. I feel that this slow and somewhat sad mood helps in the song and how it is reacted by the listeners. This song sounded like it was full of a sad hopefulness. He kept repeating the words “maybe” and “you”. The over usage of the word “maybe” supports the hopeful meaning. And the use of the word “you” in pretty much every one of the Wilco songs makes the songs not sound like they are focusing on the listeners life or experiences but like he is speaking directly to his loved one and kind of like the he isn’t aware of the listeners. In this song he hopes that things will get better.
The Second song was “You Are My Face”. Instead of focusing on a feeling of hope like the previous song, I got a feeling of hopelessness. Instead of the idea “things will get better” it is now “things are never going to get better, so why try?” This song also uses a lot of metaphors. Instead of stating straight out what is going on, he uses a lot of metaphors and literary devices to get a deeper meaning across, perhaps to allow the listener to interpret it the way he wants.
Then there was “Impossible Germany”. Now this song is unlike the previous two. This one instead of being either hopeful, or hopeless is more indignant. It seems to state, “this is how it is, it’s hard, but its going to happen”. This song is more “in your face” than the others. It is not sulking, but stating facts and the reality of it all.
Next was “Side With the Seeds”. This song uses personification and many more literary devices. It seems to be split between hopefulness and hopelessness. “No one wins but the thieves, so why side with anything”. This quote gives of a sense of giving up. It seems to be saying that the situation is impossible to change, its too frivolous, so why bother? Maybe it gives off a tone of one who has given up to the reality of it all. This is ironic because it uses many metaphors and literary devices to get the “reality” idea off.
Then “Please Be Patient With Me” played. I like this song because of the idea “you need to be patient with me”. This song seems to be more realistic in a real-world situation. Overall, I like not only the music but also the messages this band puts out with every song. It is not screamer or in-your-face opinions, but it does all that with a more artistic flare. I also like that, unlike much music today, the words mean so much. With this band, the words hold everything. It is not about having the craziest beat, but the words mean so much.
Tuesday, November 13, 2007
Metamorphasis promt #2
In Tennessee William's The Glass Menagerie the title holds everything. In the novel glass menagerie does not only symbolize glass figurines loved by the main character, Laura, but it is also a window into her true character and personality. These glass figurines do not only give readers insight, but it also gives meaning to the novel as a whole.
Laura loves her glass collection of tiny glass animals. They are her life. But these glass figurines are not only objects but symbolize her. They represent her personality, her character, her dreams. They are small, transparent and boring figurines. No one sees their use or their worth; just like Laura. She is shy, crippled and alone. But once the right light is shown through them, a different world of colors appear, and it gains life. Once the right light, the right person and inspiration, shines through her she gains life. Jim is her light. Jim brings out colors, a personality, and a side of her that not even she has seen.
But these glass figurines also represent much more. They represent a different and fragile world. These menageries comfort Laura and provide her with a different reality. They represent an escape. But these glass figurines are also very fragile and can break at any time, just like the reality Laura lives in. These pieces of glass are so revered and never fully touched by Laura, mirroring her dreams.
One figurine in particular reveals much more about Laura, the unicorn. The unicorn is a mythological creature that belongs to a different world. It is also a unique horse that may not fit in with everyone else. This is exactly how Laura feels. She feels that she does not belong and so she escapes with her glass menageries. While Laura goes through a dramatic change with Jim in the living room, the unicorn's horn is broken off. This makes the unicorn just like every other horse. It's uniqueness is gone. Laura mirrors the unicorn, but in the end she decides to give it to Jim. She no longer feels attached to it because she has finally grown up and faced the true reality. And also because the unicorn no longer represents her and her individuality. The glass menageries symbolize Laura and the world she once relied on. These old, fragile, and unappreciated figurines give a deeper look into Laura more than any words Tennessee Williams could ever have written.
Symbolism is the most important device in literature, especially in Tennessee William's The Glass Menagerie. Without this symbolism the play would simply be a story. It is only when one looks underneath and deeper into the meaning that he finds the true story. Symbolism is able to give readers a deeper look into the lives, personality, and dreams of characters like Laura. So much is explained in that small glass figurine, and without symbolism that would be lost to both the reader and the story.
Laura loves her glass collection of tiny glass animals. They are her life. But these glass figurines are not only objects but symbolize her. They represent her personality, her character, her dreams. They are small, transparent and boring figurines. No one sees their use or their worth; just like Laura. She is shy, crippled and alone. But once the right light is shown through them, a different world of colors appear, and it gains life. Once the right light, the right person and inspiration, shines through her she gains life. Jim is her light. Jim brings out colors, a personality, and a side of her that not even she has seen.
But these glass figurines also represent much more. They represent a different and fragile world. These menageries comfort Laura and provide her with a different reality. They represent an escape. But these glass figurines are also very fragile and can break at any time, just like the reality Laura lives in. These pieces of glass are so revered and never fully touched by Laura, mirroring her dreams.
One figurine in particular reveals much more about Laura, the unicorn. The unicorn is a mythological creature that belongs to a different world. It is also a unique horse that may not fit in with everyone else. This is exactly how Laura feels. She feels that she does not belong and so she escapes with her glass menageries. While Laura goes through a dramatic change with Jim in the living room, the unicorn's horn is broken off. This makes the unicorn just like every other horse. It's uniqueness is gone. Laura mirrors the unicorn, but in the end she decides to give it to Jim. She no longer feels attached to it because she has finally grown up and faced the true reality. And also because the unicorn no longer represents her and her individuality. The glass menageries symbolize Laura and the world she once relied on. These old, fragile, and unappreciated figurines give a deeper look into Laura more than any words Tennessee Williams could ever have written.
Symbolism is the most important device in literature, especially in Tennessee William's The Glass Menagerie. Without this symbolism the play would simply be a story. It is only when one looks underneath and deeper into the meaning that he finds the true story. Symbolism is able to give readers a deeper look into the lives, personality, and dreams of characters like Laura. So much is explained in that small glass figurine, and without symbolism that would be lost to both the reader and the story.
Monday, November 5, 2007
Metamorphosis Essay 1
Two conflicting desires and obligations tears at Franz Kafka in Steven Soderburgh’s Kafka. Both Soderbergh and Kafka explore differences between right and wrong, obligation and self appeal. Kafka was torn between living a life of ignorance and conformity and discovering the truth and fighting against what is wrong. In the end, he conquered both of these ambitions.
Kafka lived his life in solitude and never questioned authority. He did what was expected of him and nothing more. He was ignorant to the truth or perhaps he chose to ignore it. But once he chose to investigate his friend’s “suicide” this seemingly content life is challenged by the truth and Kafka is torn between truth or chosen ignorance. As he continues through the movie he discovers the truth but still has the choice to turn back. But Kafka chooses to venture on.
Kafka’s choice is between a life of solitude and a life or normality. He feels an obligation to himself to continue his life and an obligation to justify his friend’s death. But he later feels an obligation to society.
These two conflicting standpoints eat away at him. They wage a war and throughout the movie one threatens to win over the other. But, in the end both win, or rather they lose, leaving Kafka more ostracized than he was before.
Through the struggle Soderbergh is able to demonstrate not only the choice between what is right and wrong but also a conflict within a man and the aftermath of that internal war. Both Kafka’s struggles between comfort and conformity and his pursuit of the truth win. Kafka discovers the truth of his friend’s death and what is really going on, buthe also chooses to live and conform to his previous ignorance. Kafka was torn between two desires and two obligations, and in the end it did not matter whichone he choice. His fate was unaltered.
Kafka lived his life in solitude and never questioned authority. He did what was expected of him and nothing more. He was ignorant to the truth or perhaps he chose to ignore it. But once he chose to investigate his friend’s “suicide” this seemingly content life is challenged by the truth and Kafka is torn between truth or chosen ignorance. As he continues through the movie he discovers the truth but still has the choice to turn back. But Kafka chooses to venture on.
Kafka’s choice is between a life of solitude and a life or normality. He feels an obligation to himself to continue his life and an obligation to justify his friend’s death. But he later feels an obligation to society.
These two conflicting standpoints eat away at him. They wage a war and throughout the movie one threatens to win over the other. But, in the end both win, or rather they lose, leaving Kafka more ostracized than he was before.
Through the struggle Soderbergh is able to demonstrate not only the choice between what is right and wrong but also a conflict within a man and the aftermath of that internal war. Both Kafka’s struggles between comfort and conformity and his pursuit of the truth win. Kafka discovers the truth of his friend’s death and what is really going on, buthe also chooses to live and conform to his previous ignorance. Kafka was torn between two desires and two obligations, and in the end it did not matter whichone he choice. His fate was unaltered.
Sunday, November 4, 2007
kafka
After watching Kafka my view of The Metamorphosis and Franz Kafka changed greatly. To be honest I thought he was sort of a whack job. I am not going to lie, I thought that the scholars of today must have been on something when they considered The Metamorphosis to be a piece of literary merit. Sure, if you looked hard enough you could see some connections, but I thought that they simply looked too hard and saw something that was not really there. I believed that they formed these profound connections through great pains and struggle, and that they gave Kafka too much credit. But after the film I realized that I was wrong. Franz Kafka was not an ignorant man by any means. He was probably so intelligent and wrote so well that to the unlearned men and women the book is simply a weird science fiction novel (which brought down my self-esteem a bit when my first reaction was just that). But to those who know where to look and know how to analyze a great piece of literature, the novel is a gold mine.
After watching the movie about the real Kafka, I looked at the novel very differently. The movie mentioned the novel and if the film held any truth about the real Kafka, then I was all wrong. I believed Franz Kafka to be an open pompous writer that thought he could write anything and proclaim it to be art. But once I learned that he actually wrote the novels in secret those thoughts went away. He seemed to be a man who did not write for others, but simply for himself. That is probably why The Metamorphosis does not state things in black and white, because he felt no need to explain his thoughts. To say the least, I grew respect for Kafka.
I believe the moral of the novel is not to take things for granted, especially your family. Gregor provided for his family, and that is all he thought about. He never spent time with them and rarely talked to them about anything substantial. Then he turned into a bug and was unable to communicate or see them. He took his life for granted and had to pay the price later on. The moral of Kafka may be that you can not live in ignorance, nor can you live in complete truth. Kafka chose not to stay ignorant, and that choice threatened his life. But he would rather be knowledgeable of the truth than to live a fake life in ignorance.
Kafka may be saying that family is more than someone you provide for. Family defines you. Without them you have no reason to live. Gregor suffered from his ignorance of that fact. Kafka is also saying that humanity does not bode well with those they are unfamiliar with. Gregor’s family knew the bug was Gregor and yet they could not stand his presence or to look at him. They acted inhumane just because he looked differently. They began to forget that he was at one point their son and this resulted in his death. Even though he was blood related, they treated him inhumane. This reflects the real world in many ways.
After watching the movie about the real Kafka, I looked at the novel very differently. The movie mentioned the novel and if the film held any truth about the real Kafka, then I was all wrong. I believed Franz Kafka to be an open pompous writer that thought he could write anything and proclaim it to be art. But once I learned that he actually wrote the novels in secret those thoughts went away. He seemed to be a man who did not write for others, but simply for himself. That is probably why The Metamorphosis does not state things in black and white, because he felt no need to explain his thoughts. To say the least, I grew respect for Kafka.
I believe the moral of the novel is not to take things for granted, especially your family. Gregor provided for his family, and that is all he thought about. He never spent time with them and rarely talked to them about anything substantial. Then he turned into a bug and was unable to communicate or see them. He took his life for granted and had to pay the price later on. The moral of Kafka may be that you can not live in ignorance, nor can you live in complete truth. Kafka chose not to stay ignorant, and that choice threatened his life. But he would rather be knowledgeable of the truth than to live a fake life in ignorance.
Kafka may be saying that family is more than someone you provide for. Family defines you. Without them you have no reason to live. Gregor suffered from his ignorance of that fact. Kafka is also saying that humanity does not bode well with those they are unfamiliar with. Gregor’s family knew the bug was Gregor and yet they could not stand his presence or to look at him. They acted inhumane just because he looked differently. They began to forget that he was at one point their son and this resulted in his death. Even though he was blood related, they treated him inhumane. This reflects the real world in many ways.
Tuesday, October 23, 2007
"Why The Future Doesn't Need Us"; by Bill Joy
Joy's thesis is that technology is getting too advanced for our own good. Eventually technology will surpass us & the human race might be in danger. In a way we will eventually be put into a "catch 22". We will become so reliant on technology that to turn them off would "be equivalent to suicide", and if we don't they may overtake us. I believe that a lot of the concepts were thought out and good ideas, but I also feel that this whole article was a bit much. It seemed to take this whole situation to the extreme and it began to sound like the rantings of a scholarly but fearful and paranioid man. Which is similiar to BNW. In BNW Huxley took the scenerio to the extreme to make his point. He might have done this driven by fear and paranoia, just as Jill did. Both BNW & Joy's piece give scenerios for the future. Both seemed to be worried about the iminent future and what it holds. They would both agree that it is a bleak one fromt he path we are taking, but I believe that both have faith that there is a way to change this. Both pieces seem prove as insightful warnings for what they see as the future. Joy feels that this controlling & technological future can be avoided by either the government taking complete control and slowing down the advancement or "pace" at which we are inventing and perfecting technology, or society as a whole becoming less dependant on it. Joy also asks questions that forces the reader to answer for themselves. This seems to involve the reader on a different level and may cause him/her to look deeper into his theories. I believe that this adds to his claims and ideas; making them that much more substantial.
Monday, October 15, 2007
Harrison Bergeron
Kurt Vonnegut is satarizing Americans' tendencies to always seek equality. Our country was based upon these principles and therefore we continue to argue the basic applications of equality, but to a certain extent that gets exhausted. It is not that they are obsessed with equality, but I believe they are obsessed with the differences between our cultures, skin, race, ethnicity and appeances that they mask it with claiming "equality for all!". I believe that if someone truly did not care about race, then they would be blind to it, and would not concern themselves with the particulars of the Constitution. But I digress.
Vonnegut was also satarizing Egalitarianism, which was also the theme of the story. The ideals of an Egalitarianist society are good in theory, but differences and individualism is also necessary, and I believe this is what Vonnegut was trying to argue. Vonnegut used severe hyperbole to get his point across, and it worked. Just like Orwell and Huxley, Vonnegut used the extreme examples of a society they invisioned to capture the attentions of many.
The story is written in 3rd person. It seems to be from an outside source with no judgement or perception attatched to either side. This adds to the story and is better than if Harrison or his parents had narrated it. It gives us readers an point of view unconnected extremely with one side. It does hint at the absurdity of Harrison's parents and the society they cling to, but it does it very elegantly, resisting the total abashment of the society. This also adds to the story because it leads us, as readers, to draw our own conclusions although the author subtlely takes us by the hand and slowly leads us to them.
“Vonnegut proves repeatedly…that men and women remaining fundamentally the same, no matter what technology surrounds them.” This holds to be true in Vonnegut's story. For example, George's ear piece was to prevent him from thinking about certain things, and it would be assumed that eventually he would simply learn to not think like that, but he never learns. Despite the constant pains his mind still attempts to think deeper than allowed. That part of human nature was unaltered, despite the constant technological interference.
Vonnegut was also satarizing Egalitarianism, which was also the theme of the story. The ideals of an Egalitarianist society are good in theory, but differences and individualism is also necessary, and I believe this is what Vonnegut was trying to argue. Vonnegut used severe hyperbole to get his point across, and it worked. Just like Orwell and Huxley, Vonnegut used the extreme examples of a society they invisioned to capture the attentions of many.
The story is written in 3rd person. It seems to be from an outside source with no judgement or perception attatched to either side. This adds to the story and is better than if Harrison or his parents had narrated it. It gives us readers an point of view unconnected extremely with one side. It does hint at the absurdity of Harrison's parents and the society they cling to, but it does it very elegantly, resisting the total abashment of the society. This also adds to the story because it leads us, as readers, to draw our own conclusions although the author subtlely takes us by the hand and slowly leads us to them.
“Vonnegut proves repeatedly…that men and women remaining fundamentally the same, no matter what technology surrounds them.” This holds to be true in Vonnegut's story. For example, George's ear piece was to prevent him from thinking about certain things, and it would be assumed that eventually he would simply learn to not think like that, but he never learns. Despite the constant pains his mind still attempts to think deeper than allowed. That part of human nature was unaltered, despite the constant technological interference.
Sunday, October 7, 2007
The Ones Who Walked Away From Omelas
I did not like the passage at first. I thought it was repetative & time consuming. But, as I reached the ending & the little boy I gained a new perspective on it. I ended up liking the passage. It is my favorite 1984 related-ish post yet. I like how, unlike BNW, 1984, and robots dreams , the people of Omelas are actually aware of their situation, they have compassion and are able to make decisions for themselves. They simply choose not to decide to let the child out because it is for the betterment of the city. I also liked how some people did feel sickened by the city they live in and had the ability to leave the society.
There are many connections to the novel 1984 and this story. Both are obviously about a society that strives to be perfect. To me this story more relates to BNW than 1984. But as I stated earlier, there are some key differences. In both BNW & 1984 the people were unable to both conprehend and exit the society that they lived in, but in this story the people were well aware of their circumstances and what they had to sacrifice to keep it "perfect". They also had the ability to leave freely from this society.
There were numerous literary devices used in this story. Some include simile, metaphore and personfication. With the use of these literary devices it helps to further illustrate the story, especially the setting. Many of these devices are used in describing the happy and perfect nature of the festival and people of Omelas. This gives the reader a greater visual image and impression of the "perfect" city, which makes it that much more appalling when we find out the root of all this happiness.
1.Why does the author go to such lenghts to fully describe the happy setting of the festival?
2.Without the long description of the city's happy nature, would it have taken away from the forcefull ending?
3. The author likes to use discription to get his point across (i.e. the description of the state of the boy) does this aid the story? how?
4. Why is this titled "The Ones Who Walked Away from Omelas" when the majority of the story is not about those who walked away from omelas? What impact does it make on the story?
5. What is the tone and voice of the author?
There are many connections to the novel 1984 and this story. Both are obviously about a society that strives to be perfect. To me this story more relates to BNW than 1984. But as I stated earlier, there are some key differences. In both BNW & 1984 the people were unable to both conprehend and exit the society that they lived in, but in this story the people were well aware of their circumstances and what they had to sacrifice to keep it "perfect". They also had the ability to leave freely from this society.
There were numerous literary devices used in this story. Some include simile, metaphore and personfication. With the use of these literary devices it helps to further illustrate the story, especially the setting. Many of these devices are used in describing the happy and perfect nature of the festival and people of Omelas. This gives the reader a greater visual image and impression of the "perfect" city, which makes it that much more appalling when we find out the root of all this happiness.
1.Why does the author go to such lenghts to fully describe the happy setting of the festival?
2.Without the long description of the city's happy nature, would it have taken away from the forcefull ending?
3. The author likes to use discription to get his point across (i.e. the description of the state of the boy) does this aid the story? how?
4. Why is this titled "The Ones Who Walked Away from Omelas" when the majority of the story is not about those who walked away from omelas? What impact does it make on the story?
5. What is the tone and voice of the author?
Thursday, October 4, 2007
Why the Future doesn't need us
Preguntas:
1. Do you think that our reliance on machines will inevitably lead to complete reliance? Do you agree that we will become reliant on machines to the extent that the article states? ("People won't be able to just turn the machines off, because they will be so dependent on them that turning them off would amount to suicide. ")
2. Which one do you fear is more dangerous for humanity, human control over machines, or completely concious machines?
3. I disagree with the article when it refers to what humans will do with the power they control. (end of last parag. )I believe that their sense of humanity will overpower their hunger for power. What do you think?
4. The word "utopia" generally has a positive connotation, but from this article and those you have read prior, is a perfect utopian society even possible without the inevitable outcome of those predicted by Orwell, Asimov or the author from "Wired"?
5. Do you think that George Orwell would agree with this "Wired" author?
6. If what the article predicts does come true in the future and machines do take over, do you believe humans would have unconciously handed over their rights willingly or would they have been forced? Which one occured in 1984?
7.In your opinion, are any of these scenerios going to actually occur in our future, or are they simply scenerios creative of sci-fi geeks with too much time on their hands?
1. Do you think that our reliance on machines will inevitably lead to complete reliance? Do you agree that we will become reliant on machines to the extent that the article states? ("People won't be able to just turn the machines off, because they will be so dependent on them that turning them off would amount to suicide. ")
2. Which one do you fear is more dangerous for humanity, human control over machines, or completely concious machines?
3. I disagree with the article when it refers to what humans will do with the power they control. (end of last parag. )I believe that their sense of humanity will overpower their hunger for power. What do you think?
4. The word "utopia" generally has a positive connotation, but from this article and those you have read prior, is a perfect utopian society even possible without the inevitable outcome of those predicted by Orwell, Asimov or the author from "Wired"?
5. Do you think that George Orwell would agree with this "Wired" author?
6. If what the article predicts does come true in the future and machines do take over, do you believe humans would have unconciously handed over their rights willingly or would they have been forced? Which one occured in 1984?
7.In your opinion, are any of these scenerios going to actually occur in our future, or are they simply scenerios creative of sci-fi geeks with too much time on their hands?
Goals
To be honest, I do not really sure about 3 colleges choices. Univ. of Mich. (ann arbor) is a definite yes. Probably Mich. State. & maybe Notre Dame. Mr. Bob's suggesting Central. not sure..
'm hoping for anything over a 4.0. Erin's already there, so the pressure is on.
I'm striving for a 4 but I'm realisticall Probably a 3.
Who's helping me out?Mr. Hughes has been a huge contibutor && Mr. Brater is doing his part. That's about it.
'm hoping for anything over a 4.0. Erin's already there, so the pressure is on.
I'm striving for a 4 but I'm realisticall Probably a 3.
Who's helping me out?Mr. Hughes has been a huge contibutor && Mr. Brater is doing his part. That's about it.
Asimov Reading
Both Orwell's 1984 and Asimov's "Robot Dreams" are oddly similiar. I actually wondered half way through the passage whether the writer had read and had been influenced by Orwell's 1984 when writing "Robot Dreams". Many of the characters in both pieces parallel eachother. Both pieces of work are about a society or group of "people" (or robots) being controlled by another.The robot Elvex is very similiar to Winston. Both have accomplished what many could not. Elvex and Winston are able to envision a freedom that no other ever considered. Winston is able, despite the party's "programming", to envision a world with the rights currently unavailable to him. While Elvex is able to do something no other robot is able to do, dream. Both characters dream of something they have never experienced before, freedom. Neither Winston nor the robot remember a time of freedom and therefore neither should realize their lack of it, because it is impossible to miss what one never had. But both characters defy their programming and are able to realize what is missing even though they do not realize what power they hold in this realization.
Both characters are also being controlled by a man, or woman, that fears their newfound insite and therefore feel that it is necessary to "dispose" of them. Winston had O'brien who dissagreed with Winston's beliefs and thereby resulted in Winston's death. Elvex had Dr. Calvin who also feared the robot's new ability and insite which also resulted in the robot's death. Both characters insite ultimately resulted in their deaths. Both were in a sense unique and because of that they were a threat to the society they lived in. Winston and Elvex live in two different times and yet their situations are the same. The situation both characters faced did not age with time, but were independant of time. And that is what we should most be afraid of.
A meeting between these two men would definetly be interesting. I feel that because of the undeniable simmilarities between the characters and ultimately the ending message they would start their conversation in agreement. Both men would not deny the fact that civilization and society faces a big problem, and I also believe that they would agree that our failure is inevitable.
Both characters are also being controlled by a man, or woman, that fears their newfound insite and therefore feel that it is necessary to "dispose" of them. Winston had O'brien who dissagreed with Winston's beliefs and thereby resulted in Winston's death. Elvex had Dr. Calvin who also feared the robot's new ability and insite which also resulted in the robot's death. Both characters insite ultimately resulted in their deaths. Both were in a sense unique and because of that they were a threat to the society they lived in. Winston and Elvex live in two different times and yet their situations are the same. The situation both characters faced did not age with time, but were independant of time. And that is what we should most be afraid of.
A meeting between these two men would definetly be interesting. I feel that because of the undeniable simmilarities between the characters and ultimately the ending message they would start their conversation in agreement. Both men would not deny the fact that civilization and society faces a big problem, and I also believe that they would agree that our failure is inevitable.
Monday, September 24, 2007
watt's reading responses
Watts' thesis concerns the taboo of religion. Watt believes that by claiming yourself to one religion you become close minded to other religions. (pg. 10) He also believes that people so passionately dedicate themselves to one religion & seek converts in order to solidify beliefs that are questionable in the first place. It seems as though Watts does not have much faith in man's ability in faith. He questions their dedication and their faith itself.
Watts believes that we must conquer nature because we have a feeling of hostility toward it. We fail to realize that we were created by it and therefore feel that we must be superior to it. We fail to "cooperate with them in a harmonious order" (Watts 8).
Watts defines "new experience" as "a new feeling of what it is to be 'I'" (Watts 11). Watts believes that we are all stuck in the same mindset and to break free of that we do not need a new religion to convert to but a "new experience" in order to find what it truly means to "be 'i'".
Watts believes myth to have two seperate definitions and yet uses them to help him when children ask him metaphysical questions.
To find one's true identity Watts believes that eventually, after the "game" goes on long enough" we "wake up, stop pretending, and find that we are all one single self" (Watts 14). He believes that eventually we come to have a profound realization of sorts, we eventually stop "playing the game of hide & seek", or rather God stops playing the game.
Watts' beliefs are similiar to that of Orwell in the novel 1984 in that he believes that it is unusal that someone may realize that the norm or usual way of doing things is "odd, & uncanny and highly improbable" (Watts 6). This describes Winston. It was highly irregular and unusual that he would think that the norm, what he is told to be true, is in actuality wrong or "odd".
I believe Watts to be a very interesting and insightful man, but few obvious connections to George Orwell and 1984.
Watts believes that we must conquer nature because we have a feeling of hostility toward it. We fail to realize that we were created by it and therefore feel that we must be superior to it. We fail to "cooperate with them in a harmonious order" (Watts 8).
Watts defines "new experience" as "a new feeling of what it is to be 'I'" (Watts 11). Watts believes that we are all stuck in the same mindset and to break free of that we do not need a new religion to convert to but a "new experience" in order to find what it truly means to "be 'i'".
Watts believes myth to have two seperate definitions and yet uses them to help him when children ask him metaphysical questions.
To find one's true identity Watts believes that eventually, after the "game" goes on long enough" we "wake up, stop pretending, and find that we are all one single self" (Watts 14). He believes that eventually we come to have a profound realization of sorts, we eventually stop "playing the game of hide & seek", or rather God stops playing the game.
Watts' beliefs are similiar to that of Orwell in the novel 1984 in that he believes that it is unusal that someone may realize that the norm or usual way of doing things is "odd, & uncanny and highly improbable" (Watts 6). This describes Winston. It was highly irregular and unusual that he would think that the norm, what he is told to be true, is in actuality wrong or "odd".
I believe Watts to be a very interesting and insightful man, but few obvious connections to George Orwell and 1984.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)