Part A
Me asking my cousin for this assignment isn't the first time I've blown off his cover. He has always had a tendency to criticize- to trash talk people. So me asking him about how he aggrandizes himself is actually just a revival of a previous discussion. And as expected, he repeated his response: "I don't know. Cause it's fun." Of course, this wasn't the reason he does what he does. I knew, because people who have fun usually don't glare at other people while doing it. Trying to be as nice as possible, hoping to not make this conversation into an argument, I asked: "Well, do you think there's another reason why you do it? I'm not saying that you do it, but there are other people who do it as a way to make themselves seem better." He replied, "I know I'm not better than everyone else." He went on about the only reason he does it is because it's fun, and how it's funny to see people's reactions.
I think that this method of aggrandizing is not to make yourself bigger, but just appear bigger compared to all those people you crush. You point out people's flaws and emphasize on them, to turn that flaw into their identity. By doing so, you're making yourself seem like an overall better person. Just the act of criticizing someone demonstrates that you view yourself as superior. You are able to analyze someone at a distance, implying that whatever critique you make does not apply to you.
Part B
Similar to my cousin, I criticize people as well (more subtly though). However, unlike my cousin, I don't openly criticize people. I make judgments and, for the msot part, I keep it to myself. I psychoanalyze, at least try to, people and try to determine their mental and behavioral pattern. Even in me trying to blow off my cousins mask through Part A, I am portraying myself as the more superior one. Of course, my defense would be that I "read" people because that is what I value, and my interest. It's "just who I am." But of course, it is a skill that I find impressive, and think other people would find impressive (and therefore find me smart). In fact, the main reason why I even started to try to psychoanalyze was because I saw my dad doing it. I thought it was impressive how he could just understand and predict people, so I began looking for patterns in people, trying to do the same.
In the same way that my cousin was criticizing and distancing himself from other people, I am doing the same. By me reading people, it is like I am the judge, and everyone is my subject. Although, on the surface I am not making myself stand out, mentally, I am aggrandizing myself- making myself at a different level than everyone else.
Another method that I follow is engaging in physical activities, such as handball. In the words of my cousin, one of the reasons why I play handball is "cause it's fun." But that it not the only reason. When you're playing handball, or any other sport, you're in a world that only has up to 4 people in it (more than 4, if you're talking about other sports- but still a limited number). And by playing, you are amongst that small number. For the brief moment that I play handball, it's like I am the star of this world. And if I do something impressive, it would be acknowledged by the other people playing, and the other people on the sidelines, waiting for their turn to shine. Handball players are, of course, not significant in society or in the bigger picture (according to most people). But we become significant when we're in the courts, at least to each other.
And with not that many people in our school playing handball, I am acknowledged as, the kid who plays handball. It is a role that isn't played by that many students in SOF. So even just by me playing handball, I am somewhat significant because I play a role that is only occupied by me, and maybe a few others.
Tuesday, December 22, 2009
Monday, December 21, 2009
Psychological and Philosophical Theorizing of Cool [HW #30]
"How is a cup empty? We usually say that a cup is empty if it does not contain any liquid or solid. This is the ordinary meaning of emptiness. But, is the cup really empty?"
According to Buddhism, our lives are like cups. If it is not filled with a solid or a liquid- something visible, we believe that it is empty. But in fact, the cup is never empty. There are still particles that hold a place in the cup, regardless of how apparent that is. However, living in a predominantly superficial world, where merit only exists when it can be instantly perceived, we need some sort of signifier to believe that our cups are full. "The cup exists, but like everything in this world, its existence depends on other phenomena." We only (think we)know what we perceive. Therefore, we coat our significance to see its reflection.
Viktor Frankl's metaphor of the existential vacuum says that: "If meaning is what we desire, then meaninglessness is a hole, an emptiness, in our lives. Whenever you have a vacuum, of course, things rush in to fill it." I agree, in that there is some sort of socket in our lives that needs to be filled. However, we do not live our lives as a vacuum, collecting dirt to fulfill that need. Going back to Buddhism, the nothingness does not even exist. We do not need nor do we fill our lives, because it's already filled. We're just not acknowledging or appreciating the moments, because we're so caught up in making them special, or valuable.
One way of coating those moments already in our lives is being cool. When you're cool, and you do cool things, your life becomes note-worthy. By winning over other people's approval, you can see how valuable your life is. It's not that we're gaining meaningful experiences, but it's that we're reconstructing those experiences in our lives so that they're observable.
One portrayal of this aspect in our live is Never Let Me Go by Kazuo Ishiguro. The donors in this book are encouraged to create works of art, ones that are worthy to go in the gallery. Being that their (as well as ours) fate is to die, they want to have these art pieces as proofs of their existence. In a similar manner, we want to have these "immortality projects" to prove that we matter. And trying to act cool, and drawing attention from others is one of our methods. But just as the characters are passively living their lives by trying to act cool, so are we. For the most part, both the characters in Never Let Me Go and the people in our society, we are caught up in making our significance apparent through acting cool, we fail to see the bigger picture. For them, it's pretending to be important to a certain teacher by having a fake pencil case gift, and neglecting that the purpose of their existence. For us, it's receiving ignorant comments while acting ignorant, and losing sight of our situation (this applies to Never Let Me Go as well).
In both of cases, we are not extracting anything from being cool, aside from external approval. We're not really acting as vacuums and gaining any meaningful dirt to fill our emptiness. Instead, the motion of acting cool is just us coating our lives so that they're more attractive, so that people will take notice, and therefore prove that we're worth something. It ties back to our discussions about having a mask on. Because our identity is there (regardless of how authentic it is), because we're layering it so that it fits to social expectations. And in that process of layering, we lose that identity. Our lives aren't being filled with anything. The particles in it are just changing so that they can their reflection can become apparent.
According to Buddhism, our lives are like cups. If it is not filled with a solid or a liquid- something visible, we believe that it is empty. But in fact, the cup is never empty. There are still particles that hold a place in the cup, regardless of how apparent that is. However, living in a predominantly superficial world, where merit only exists when it can be instantly perceived, we need some sort of signifier to believe that our cups are full. "The cup exists, but like everything in this world, its existence depends on other phenomena." We only (think we)know what we perceive. Therefore, we coat our significance to see its reflection.
Viktor Frankl's metaphor of the existential vacuum says that: "If meaning is what we desire, then meaninglessness is a hole, an emptiness, in our lives. Whenever you have a vacuum, of course, things rush in to fill it." I agree, in that there is some sort of socket in our lives that needs to be filled. However, we do not live our lives as a vacuum, collecting dirt to fulfill that need. Going back to Buddhism, the nothingness does not even exist. We do not need nor do we fill our lives, because it's already filled. We're just not acknowledging or appreciating the moments, because we're so caught up in making them special, or valuable.
One way of coating those moments already in our lives is being cool. When you're cool, and you do cool things, your life becomes note-worthy. By winning over other people's approval, you can see how valuable your life is. It's not that we're gaining meaningful experiences, but it's that we're reconstructing those experiences in our lives so that they're observable.
One portrayal of this aspect in our live is Never Let Me Go by Kazuo Ishiguro. The donors in this book are encouraged to create works of art, ones that are worthy to go in the gallery. Being that their (as well as ours) fate is to die, they want to have these art pieces as proofs of their existence. In a similar manner, we want to have these "immortality projects" to prove that we matter. And trying to act cool, and drawing attention from others is one of our methods. But just as the characters are passively living their lives by trying to act cool, so are we. For the most part, both the characters in Never Let Me Go and the people in our society, we are caught up in making our significance apparent through acting cool, we fail to see the bigger picture. For them, it's pretending to be important to a certain teacher by having a fake pencil case gift, and neglecting that the purpose of their existence. For us, it's receiving ignorant comments while acting ignorant, and losing sight of our situation (this applies to Never Let Me Go as well).
In both of cases, we are not extracting anything from being cool, aside from external approval. We're not really acting as vacuums and gaining any meaningful dirt to fill our emptiness. Instead, the motion of acting cool is just us coating our lives so that they're more attractive, so that people will take notice, and therefore prove that we're worth something. It ties back to our discussions about having a mask on. Because our identity is there (regardless of how authentic it is), because we're layering it so that it fits to social expectations. And in that process of layering, we lose that identity. Our lives aren't being filled with anything. The particles in it are just changing so that they can their reflection can become apparent.
Saturday, December 12, 2009
Merchants of Cool [HW #29]
Since this assignment is already graded, I'll come back to it once I'm done with making up the other ones.
Monday, December 7, 2009
Informal Research: Internet, Magazines and TV Shows [HW #28]
CJS Online
Routledge, . "Freaks, Geeks, and Cool Kids: American Teenagers, Schools, and the Culture of Consumption.." CJS Online (2004): n. pag. Web. 21 Dec 2009..
This is an online book review for Murray Milner's Freaks, Geeks, and Cool Kids: American Teenagers, Schools, and the Culture of Consumption. It sums up Miler's key points about how high school teenage lifestyles and consumer capitalism "are not inevitably linked, but they are mutually supportive and highly compatible with one another" and about teenagers acting cool in attempt to gain status, since high school is a hierarchy.
Miler makes the point that both coolness and capitalism feeds off of what it produces. Coolness depends on capitalism to provide its core and its signifiers. Capitalism depends on coolness to provide its products and revenue. I agree that they are intertwined, and that both of these are significant aspects in our lives. However, I think that to just focus in on teenage high school lives would be kind of ignorant. I think that our teenage years are the peak of our attempts of trying to be cool. Everyone, throughout their whole lives tries to be cool, but just in different forms. I think that by critiquing teenage lives, the author is separating himself from this category of: Fools who care about what others think, and tries extremely hard to become significant. But just him having a title like that for his web page contradicts him not trying.
What's Cool? (What's Hot? What's Not?)
Fenichel, Michael. "What is "Cool"? (What's Hot? What's Not?)." Dr. Michael Fenichel's Teaching Tools (2008): n. pag. Web. 21 Dec 2009..
Michael Fenichel tries to explain the reasons of why we try to be cool. He says, "If we were "cool" with our parents, assuming we had parents of course, we usually felt pretty good as long as people were loving and caring for us." According to him, teenagers try to hold a spot in people's lives because we've held one in our parents lives, and because of our hormones.
I would agree with his point about us trying to expand our territory in people's lives. We've already conquered our parents' hearts, at least most or some of us. So our next step is to do the same with other people. I would add that, we start off planting our seeds during our teenage years (maybe even before). To those seeds, we are only remotely significant to them. But once something has developed into a boyfriend/girlfriend, we become even more important. And eventually, we become important to the kid(s), that is a product of the development of that initial seed. Kind of cheesy, but it's interesting how we usually feed off of the plants we grow.
NY Times: What's Cool Online? Teenagers Render Verdict
Bossman, Julie. "What's Cool Online? Teenagers Render Verdict." New York Times (2005): n. pag. Web. 21 Dec 2009..
According to NY Times, customization is what's cool online. It allows for people to express themselves freely (through the limited options). Their online profiles, or designs in their example, can reflect on what they think is cool, or "who they are".
I think it's true that people would prefer to have a canvas in which they can paint on. Many people are looking to put their own tweak on things, and customization creates that availability. By having their own ideas on things, it's kind of like they're marking their territory. If they're the first one to have that design within that canvas, then they are original- they are authentic. And isn't being original part of being cool?
Routledge, . "Freaks, Geeks, and Cool Kids: American Teenagers, Schools, and the Culture of Consumption.." CJS Online (2004): n. pag. Web. 21 Dec 2009.
This is an online book review for Murray Milner's Freaks, Geeks, and Cool Kids: American Teenagers, Schools, and the Culture of Consumption. It sums up Miler's key points about how high school teenage lifestyles and consumer capitalism "are not inevitably linked, but they are mutually supportive and highly compatible with one another" and about teenagers acting cool in attempt to gain status, since high school is a hierarchy.
Miler makes the point that both coolness and capitalism feeds off of what it produces. Coolness depends on capitalism to provide its core and its signifiers. Capitalism depends on coolness to provide its products and revenue. I agree that they are intertwined, and that both of these are significant aspects in our lives. However, I think that to just focus in on teenage high school lives would be kind of ignorant. I think that our teenage years are the peak of our attempts of trying to be cool. Everyone, throughout their whole lives tries to be cool, but just in different forms. I think that by critiquing teenage lives, the author is separating himself from this category of: Fools who care about what others think, and tries extremely hard to become significant. But just him having a title like that for his web page contradicts him not trying.
What's Cool? (What's Hot? What's Not?)
Fenichel, Michael. "What is "Cool"? (What's Hot? What's Not?)." Dr. Michael Fenichel's Teaching Tools (2008): n. pag. Web. 21 Dec 2009.
Michael Fenichel tries to explain the reasons of why we try to be cool. He says, "If we were "cool" with our parents, assuming we had parents of course, we usually felt pretty good as long as people were loving and caring for us." According to him, teenagers try to hold a spot in people's lives because we've held one in our parents lives, and because of our hormones.
I would agree with his point about us trying to expand our territory in people's lives. We've already conquered our parents' hearts, at least most or some of us. So our next step is to do the same with other people. I would add that, we start off planting our seeds during our teenage years (maybe even before). To those seeds, we are only remotely significant to them. But once something has developed into a boyfriend/girlfriend, we become even more important. And eventually, we become important to the kid(s), that is a product of the development of that initial seed. Kind of cheesy, but it's interesting how we usually feed off of the plants we grow.
NY Times: What's Cool Online? Teenagers Render Verdict
Bossman, Julie. "What's Cool Online? Teenagers Render Verdict." New York Times (2005): n. pag. Web. 21 Dec 2009.
According to NY Times, customization is what's cool online. It allows for people to express themselves freely (through the limited options). Their online profiles, or designs in their example, can reflect on what they think is cool, or "who they are".
I think it's true that people would prefer to have a canvas in which they can paint on. Many people are looking to put their own tweak on things, and customization creates that availability. By having their own ideas on things, it's kind of like they're marking their territory. If they're the first one to have that design within that canvas, then they are original- they are authentic. And isn't being original part of being cool?
Thursday, December 3, 2009
Informal Research: Interviews and Surveys [HW #27]
Stranger
It was just me and my homeboy,John Li. We were walking along third avenue, after being rejected on second avenue. Being all discouraged and stuff, we were talking about our plans to interview people from our internship- people that we know, kind of. It right after that discussion when we saw this one female from afar. She was short, relative to either one of us. She was also chubby, relative to either one of us. This female was just standing there, looking around. But I noticed the neon vest she had on, which indicated to me that she was just standing there, with a purpose.
As we walked crossed the street, getting closer and closer to this female, I was aware that my mouth was slightly opened, and my cheeks (on my face) were higher than usual. I began by telling her that we go to School of the Future (actually I said, "that school over there," and I pointed behind her. "School of the Future.") and were doing interviews for our cool unit. She nodded, and I took that as I sign that she was willing to be an interviewee.
When asked about what she thinks are some of the characteristics of a cool person, she responded by saying, "someone who is cool... His outfit, he has a unique outfit. Knows what he wants in life." John expanded by asking if there were certain stereotypes based on how people try to act cool. She responded: clothes are not representative of their personality. She said that she sees a lot of kids from the School of Visual Arts dressing gothic-like, but it doesn't mean that they worship the devil. She mentioned this point, three times.
I asked this person: why do you think people would try to be cool over being smart? She said "they just want to fit it." She emphasized on how people wanted to "belong" and seek for acceptance. I then asked: wouldn't a smart person contribute more to society than a cool person? She restated her point about people wanting to fit in.
We said our thank you's (mostly because she allowed us to get one of our interviews done). And we headed back towards the school, and reflected on what just happened in our lives.
John "nice SAT teacher" Ma
I wasn't sure if I would be comfortable in asking another stranger for an interview (mostly out of the fear of rejection), so I began to brainstorm a list of people I knew that I could interview. Being that this mental process took place on a Wednesday, I thought: I could interview my supervisor when I go to internship tomorrow. And so I went to my internship the very next day, which happens to be the school I went to for SAT prep. It turns out that he had something else to do, and didn't show up.
Moving onto plan B, I emailed him. After asking for asking for permission, and exchanging a few words of appreciation, I received this email:
I read it, and posted it on www.blogger.com
Sister (aka. my cousin)
Of course, even with that email I was still missing one more interview. I decided to ask my cousin. I first asked her through the phone. She agreed, and I told her I'd meet her at our grandma's house that night. That didn't happen until the night after. The interview didn't even happen during that night after. Nobody felt like recording.
The time finally came when I felt like recording the interview. We were sitting in a car, waiting to arrive at Chinatown, and what I recorded was:
Me: What does the word "cool" mean to you?
Sister: The weather. It's cold out.
Me: I meant in terms of your attitude.
Sister: Nonchalant. Cool people I know are relax. They have their own philosophies [I thought she said velocities] on life. Such as this one person I know. His name is Sherman.
Me: So you think he's original?
Sister: He is very original.
Me: Can you expand on how he's cool and original?
Sister: At the time, I was an uptight, college sophomore. And I met him in my Japanese class. After getting to know him, he taught me that I shouldn't hold everything so close to heart. As long as you do what is needed to be done. There is no use stressing over things that inevitable.
Me: I don't agree with that.
Sister: I'm not done....Because you're going to spend most of your time stressing rather than doing. And whatever gossip that he hears regarding him and bad attitudes regarding him, he confronts it with the same nonchalant and with an international hand gesture. He will not get angry or get violent. At that time, I was stressed by still adjusting to a new academic environment and situation in the household so his attitude was very refreshing. And I feel refreshing equals cool. HOLLA!!
The conversation took a pause. In a lame attempt to milk the interview for all it's worth, I asked if his fashion sense had an effect on his coolness. She said things pertaining to (I got too lazy to write down all her random thoughts word for word): guitar, bright clothing, being different from everyone in school, leopard printed book bag, tall, fobby, HK style (Hong Kong style), photographer, drinks alcohol).
Sister: Is that it?
Me: Yeah.
It was just me and my homeboy,John Li. We were walking along third avenue, after being rejected on second avenue. Being all discouraged and stuff, we were talking about our plans to interview people from our internship- people that we know, kind of. It right after that discussion when we saw this one female from afar. She was short, relative to either one of us. She was also chubby, relative to either one of us. This female was just standing there, looking around. But I noticed the neon vest she had on, which indicated to me that she was just standing there, with a purpose.
As we walked crossed the street, getting closer and closer to this female, I was aware that my mouth was slightly opened, and my cheeks (on my face) were higher than usual. I began by telling her that we go to School of the Future (actually I said, "that school over there," and I pointed behind her. "School of the Future.") and were doing interviews for our cool unit. She nodded, and I took that as I sign that she was willing to be an interviewee.
When asked about what she thinks are some of the characteristics of a cool person, she responded by saying, "someone who is cool... His outfit, he has a unique outfit. Knows what he wants in life." John expanded by asking if there were certain stereotypes based on how people try to act cool. She responded: clothes are not representative of their personality. She said that she sees a lot of kids from the School of Visual Arts dressing gothic-like, but it doesn't mean that they worship the devil. She mentioned this point, three times.
I asked this person: why do you think people would try to be cool over being smart? She said "they just want to fit it." She emphasized on how people wanted to "belong" and seek for acceptance. I then asked: wouldn't a smart person contribute more to society than a cool person? She restated her point about people wanting to fit in.
We said our thank you's (mostly because she allowed us to get one of our interviews done). And we headed back towards the school, and reflected on what just happened in our lives.
John "nice SAT teacher" Ma
I wasn't sure if I would be comfortable in asking another stranger for an interview (mostly out of the fear of rejection), so I began to brainstorm a list of people I knew that I could interview. Being that this mental process took place on a Wednesday, I thought: I could interview my supervisor when I go to internship tomorrow. And so I went to my internship the very next day, which happens to be the school I went to for SAT prep. It turns out that he had something else to do, and didn't show up.
Moving onto plan B, I emailed him. After asking for asking for permission, and exchanging a few words of appreciation, I received this email:
"1. Why do you think people (specifically teens) have more aspiration to be "cool" than to be intelligent, even thought intelligence is what's going to contribute to society more?
Coolness is an attitude, a style, or rather a way of living. Intelligence is, i think, reasoning, problem solving skills, relating to people, setting and achiving objective, etc.. Both are very complex concepts, but they are not necessarily contradict each other. I think one can be both cool and intelligent.
if you think of Maslow’s Hierarchy of Needs, "Coolness" of teens satisfies lower level of needs, so it comes first.. intelligence satisfies higher level of needs, so it takes a few years (perhaps in college) for teens to realize that intelligence is the tool they need to reach higher goals.
2. Do you think trying to be cool is a distraction, or is all just part of life? If it's a distraction, what is it distracting us from? If it's just a part of life, do you think this is a good way of living?
I think being cool is just part of life. There are two kinds of cool : Cool with originality, or Cool by immitating others..
Cool with originality and creativity is a good way of living.
Although one pays prices for being cool.
3. Is it possible to be cool without trying to attain: attention, approval, attraction, and/or power? If so, how?
Yes, it's possible. A philosopher named Ludwig Wittgenstein, he went into the mountain and started a school to teach village children for many years. I thought that's cool. His dad was the richest man in Europe at that time."
I read it, and posted it on www.blogger.com
Sister (aka. my cousin)
Of course, even with that email I was still missing one more interview. I decided to ask my cousin. I first asked her through the phone. She agreed, and I told her I'd meet her at our grandma's house that night. That didn't happen until the night after. The interview didn't even happen during that night after. Nobody felt like recording.
The time finally came when I felt like recording the interview. We were sitting in a car, waiting to arrive at Chinatown, and what I recorded was:
Me: What does the word "cool" mean to you?
Sister: The weather. It's cold out.
Me: I meant in terms of your attitude.
Sister: Nonchalant. Cool people I know are relax. They have their own philosophies [I thought she said velocities] on life. Such as this one person I know. His name is Sherman.
Me: So you think he's original?
Sister: He is very original.
Me: Can you expand on how he's cool and original?
Sister: At the time, I was an uptight, college sophomore. And I met him in my Japanese class. After getting to know him, he taught me that I shouldn't hold everything so close to heart. As long as you do what is needed to be done. There is no use stressing over things that inevitable.
Me: I don't agree with that.
Sister: I'm not done....Because you're going to spend most of your time stressing rather than doing. And whatever gossip that he hears regarding him and bad attitudes regarding him, he confronts it with the same nonchalant and with an international hand gesture. He will not get angry or get violent. At that time, I was stressed by still adjusting to a new academic environment and situation in the household so his attitude was very refreshing. And I feel refreshing equals cool. HOLLA!!
The conversation took a pause. In a lame attempt to milk the interview for all it's worth, I asked if his fashion sense had an effect on his coolness. She said things pertaining to (I got too lazy to write down all her random thoughts word for word): guitar, bright clothing, being different from everyone in school, leopard printed book bag, tall, fobby, HK style (Hong Kong style), photographer, drinks alcohol).
Sister: Is that it?
Me: Yeah.
Wednesday, December 2, 2009
Big Fish in a Small (Koi) Pond [HW #26]
[Amanda "Gertrude" Yu]
What general patterns do you see in how "cool" people act or behave?
"Fun. Chill-axed. Different."
Who's the coolest person that you know?
"ME. LOL. i unno. everyones equally as cool. Kus like even if other people don't think that the buddies you hang out with is cool. Your their buddy and obviously you think they're cool kus you hang out with them."
Do you think it's important to have a mainstream view to be cool?
"I think im pretty special. Everyones special :-D"
Do you care about being cool? And what if someone called you a loser?
"Not really. Kus then you wont be cool. You'll be like everyone else. NON SPECIAL. coolios comes naturally ;-)"
":-( They'r delusional. I unno.. no one tells other peopel that they'r cool or not.. Its like a silent rule. Cool people dont call other people losers. they just call other people cool"
[Gai]
What are some characteristics of a cool person?
"Gotta talk the talk and walk the walk. Dont dress too much or too little."
Which one do you think is more important? the freshness or the attitude?
"I dont think it work if you dont have them both. But if i have to pick, i'll say the freshness" {Is there a reason that you'd pick that?} "Because everyone person consider "cool" have a different type of attitude."
Do you have any extra thoughts about "cool"?
"You have to stay cool wit things. Cant go OD and cant b carefree. Have control, but still flow with it."
[Gordon]
Would you consider yourself cool? Do you think others think you're cool?
"Of course, man. I always got people to chill with wherever I go. If I wasn't cool, would they really hang out with me? And plus, you think I'm cool. Or else you wouldn't be interviewing me, right?"
So do you think being popular is the same as being cool?
"I think there are some people are well-known cause they're assholes, but that doesn't mean they're cool. So no, but I think being cool also means that you are liked by many people."
How big of a role does being cool play in your life?
I'm not like constantly worrying about impressing people, or getting people to like me. Matter of fact, fuck what other people think. If they like me, then they like me. If they don't, then oh well. It's just like, if people think I'm cool, then great. If not, then whatever.
What general patterns do you see in how "cool" people act or behave?
"Fun. Chill-axed. Different."
Who's the coolest person that you know?
"ME. LOL. i unno. everyones equally as cool. Kus like even if other people don't think that the buddies you hang out with is cool. Your their buddy and obviously you think they're cool kus you hang out with them."
Do you think it's important to have a mainstream view to be cool?
"I think im pretty special. Everyones special :-D"
Do you care about being cool? And what if someone called you a loser?
"Not really. Kus then you wont be cool. You'll be like everyone else. NON SPECIAL. coolios comes naturally ;-)"
":-( They'r delusional. I unno.. no one tells other peopel that they'r cool or not.. Its like a silent rule. Cool people dont call other people losers. they just call other people cool"
[Gai]
What are some characteristics of a cool person?
"Gotta talk the talk and walk the walk. Dont dress too much or too little."
Which one do you think is more important? the freshness or the attitude?
"I dont think it work if you dont have them both. But if i have to pick, i'll say the freshness" {Is there a reason that you'd pick that?} "Because everyone person consider "cool" have a different type of attitude."
Do you have any extra thoughts about "cool"?
"You have to stay cool wit things. Cant go OD and cant b carefree. Have control, but still flow with it."
[Gordon]
Would you consider yourself cool? Do you think others think you're cool?
"Of course, man. I always got people to chill with wherever I go. If I wasn't cool, would they really hang out with me? And plus, you think I'm cool. Or else you wouldn't be interviewing me, right?"
So do you think being popular is the same as being cool?
"I think there are some people are well-known cause they're assholes, but that doesn't mean they're cool. So no, but I think being cool also means that you are liked by many people."
How big of a role does being cool play in your life?
I'm not like constantly worrying about impressing people, or getting people to like me. Matter of fact, fuck what other people think. If they like me, then they like me. If they don't, then oh well. It's just like, if people think I'm cool, then great. If not, then whatever.
Wednesday, November 25, 2009
Story Comments and Analysis [HW #25]
PART I: COMMENTS
Comments for Gavin's Story:
As expected from John Galt. This story a...maybe not "alternative" but a less popular view on "cool." I think that if more people valued deep and meaningful conversations like your character (and you) over fresh kicks, our world will be way better, way smarter place to live in.
Your story was, of course, articulate. I don't really gotta talk about that for you or anybody else to be aware of that. Yeah...so...great story. I think this is definitely up there amongst the stories that people wrote for the PePo class.
Comments for Esther's Story:
I think it's very interesting how you highlighted the part of the day that we usually don't value, or even remember, in order to demonstrate coolness. Oh, I liked how you also highlighted those moments of "[pause]"s and deducing.
This story is very realistic. It doesn't create this fantasized extremely cool, or extremely lame person. He was normal. But I'm still uncertain about whether or not he's a cool person, or a lame-o, in your perspective. I'm guessing cool.
I like how you semi-incorporated the digital unit, and how like being trapped by these DRDs is part of being cool.
"Cool story" said the chinese kid to the pinay.
Comment for John's Story:
Hello, my name is Ryan and I like to skkaaaateboard.
It'd be pretty cool if this actually happened. It's definitely weird and different enough to be. Aside from the random outburst of juking, another aspect of coolness I got from your story was the need to keep up with the latest trend. In your case it would be the song choice of Thriller. I also saw how being cool means to break out of your roles. The students: supposed to be taking notes, but is instead now dancing. The teacher: supposed to keep order, but is now creating a new order.
Totally random story, but definitely cool.
Comment for Sandy's Story
Aye. You made some good points in your story. I think we constantly say stuff along the lines of: "Let's just walk and see where we end up" or "Pretty good, can't complain." We just say whatever that allows us to avoid the issue temporarily.
Based on the way that I read your story, I think that your idea of cool is having issues, but not letting that show. Like you're able to put up a front, but still understand your situation. Not quite sure though. She might also fit into the mystic coolness role.
I'm just as curious as anyone else about what actually happened. But I think that, contrary to what Julie and Gavin said, it would be better if you left it as it is. It leaves room for the reader's imagination. Maybe the readers can comment their own interpretations of what happened.
Anyways, nice story Sandy. It depicts our current situation quite accurately, but still gives it that twist.
Comment for Arden's Story
Hey,
I agree with Remy. At least, I thought your idea of cool would the sociable kid that slaps high fives to all his friends. But it turns out that the cool-cool kid is the one that doesn't give a crap about everyone else. In fact, quite the opposite of Dakota. Plus, in terms of coolness the name, Hawk totally pwns Dakota.
PART II: ANALYSIS
From the stories I've read, most of the cool characters shared an element of unexpectedness. In order for them to fit into the role of being cool, they'd have to break out of their other roles first. In John's story, Ryan was, at first, playing the role as the teenager, giving people pounds, and the role as the student, taking his notes. However, he was only able to achieve the cool rank when he broke out of those roles, and began to dance out of nowhere. The same goes for the person, who broke out of their role as "teacher."
In the act of breaking out of their daily roles, these cool people might actually just be trying to stand out. That is because cool is not really something you be, or become. It's something you're acknowledged as. So if other people don't notice you, it's near-impossible for you to be cool.
In all of these stories, no one really has a completely different life style. All of them revolve around the same dominant way of life, but they have their own little detours along the way. We add our own interpretations, that is a coalesce of past interpretations. Being that we were advised to write about teenagers, most of stories have teenagers in them, that are in school. Teenagers and school are directly intertwined. But we try to find chances during the in-between's and the on-the-side's to be cool. Our cool lifestyles never drift too far from the dominant AWOL. Regardless of how "different" we are, and as a result: how cool we are, we all still have the same cores. We all fit in, but perhaps not perfectly in.
Comments for Gavin's Story:
As expected from John Galt. This story a...maybe not "alternative" but a less popular view on "cool." I think that if more people valued deep and meaningful conversations like your character (and you) over fresh kicks, our world will be way better, way smarter place to live in.
Your story was, of course, articulate. I don't really gotta talk about that for you or anybody else to be aware of that. Yeah...so...great story. I think this is definitely up there amongst the stories that people wrote for the PePo class.
Comments for Esther's Story:
I think it's very interesting how you highlighted the part of the day that we usually don't value, or even remember, in order to demonstrate coolness. Oh, I liked how you also highlighted those moments of "[pause]"s and deducing.
This story is very realistic. It doesn't create this fantasized extremely cool, or extremely lame person. He was normal. But I'm still uncertain about whether or not he's a cool person, or a lame-o, in your perspective. I'm guessing cool.
I like how you semi-incorporated the digital unit, and how like being trapped by these DRDs is part of being cool.
"Cool story" said the chinese kid to the pinay.
Comment for John's Story:
Hello, my name is Ryan and I like to skkaaaateboard.
It'd be pretty cool if this actually happened. It's definitely weird and different enough to be. Aside from the random outburst of juking, another aspect of coolness I got from your story was the need to keep up with the latest trend. In your case it would be the song choice of Thriller. I also saw how being cool means to break out of your roles. The students: supposed to be taking notes, but is instead now dancing. The teacher: supposed to keep order, but is now creating a new order.
Totally random story, but definitely cool.
Comment for Sandy's Story
Aye. You made some good points in your story. I think we constantly say stuff along the lines of: "Let's just walk and see where we end up" or "Pretty good, can't complain." We just say whatever that allows us to avoid the issue temporarily.
Based on the way that I read your story, I think that your idea of cool is having issues, but not letting that show. Like you're able to put up a front, but still understand your situation. Not quite sure though. She might also fit into the mystic coolness role.
I'm just as curious as anyone else about what actually happened. But I think that, contrary to what Julie and Gavin said, it would be better if you left it as it is. It leaves room for the reader's imagination. Maybe the readers can comment their own interpretations of what happened.
Anyways, nice story Sandy. It depicts our current situation quite accurately, but still gives it that twist.
Comment for Arden's Story
Hey,
I agree with Remy. At least, I thought your idea of cool would the sociable kid that slaps high fives to all his friends. But it turns out that the cool-cool kid is the one that doesn't give a crap about everyone else. In fact, quite the opposite of Dakota. Plus, in terms of coolness the name, Hawk totally pwns Dakota.
PART II: ANALYSIS
From the stories I've read, most of the cool characters shared an element of unexpectedness. In order for them to fit into the role of being cool, they'd have to break out of their other roles first. In John's story, Ryan was, at first, playing the role as the teenager, giving people pounds, and the role as the student, taking his notes. However, he was only able to achieve the cool rank when he broke out of those roles, and began to dance out of nowhere. The same goes for the person, who broke out of their role as "teacher."
In the act of breaking out of their daily roles, these cool people might actually just be trying to stand out. That is because cool is not really something you be, or become. It's something you're acknowledged as. So if other people don't notice you, it's near-impossible for you to be cool.
In all of these stories, no one really has a completely different life style. All of them revolve around the same dominant way of life, but they have their own little detours along the way. We add our own interpretations, that is a coalesce of past interpretations. Being that we were advised to write about teenagers, most of stories have teenagers in them, that are in school. Teenagers and school are directly intertwined. But we try to find chances during the in-between's and the on-the-side's to be cool. Our cool lifestyles never drift too far from the dominant AWOL. Regardless of how "different" we are, and as a result: how cool we are, we all still have the same cores. We all fit in, but perhaps not perfectly in.
Thursday, November 19, 2009
Short Story [HW #24]
Look at that back- where's the structure? He clearly has no class.
He was just sitting there, next to the tree. Perhaps he is waiting for someone. No... well, whatever I gotta go home, gotta sign on AIM; people are waiting.
But look at him. What a loser. What is he even looking at? The clouds? What is there to look at? It's so plain, and gloomy. They don't really have one consistent shape. It's pretty dark, but not completely dark I guess. Looks kind of like... Hmm...Like the color of the Apple icon, and has the form of...Cousin Itt.
Oh! Owww. Stupid lady poked her umbrella into my eye. Eh, it doesn't hurt that much. "Ohhhh, owwww. My eye... It hurts! If only someone would watch where they were going..." Yeah, she probably heard that. Alright, onto home.
How did that guy reacting to this injustice of eye-poking? Did he not notice? He's still there, and still looking upwards. How long can you stare a clouds? Maybe, he's feeling the rain. What a loser.
The rain does feel nice.
Doesn't this guy have work? Doesn't he have school Doesn't he have a family? How does he have time to just sit there? Maybe he has a day off today. But still, he should have so many better things to do. If I had the time he had, I would already be level 100.
I wish I had the time that this guy has. I would be able to do some many other things than just sit in a classroom and listen to the teacher talk. It's not like they have anything good to say anyways. They're always so repetitive. I can't wait until I am free from school. I would finally be able to do what I want, and it's probably going to be more productive.
Oh look, I have the light. Time to go home.
He was just sitting there, next to the tree. Perhaps he is waiting for someone. No... well, whatever I gotta go home, gotta sign on AIM; people are waiting.
But look at him. What a loser. What is he even looking at? The clouds? What is there to look at? It's so plain, and gloomy. They don't really have one consistent shape. It's pretty dark, but not completely dark I guess. Looks kind of like... Hmm...Like the color of the Apple icon, and has the form of...Cousin Itt.
Oh! Owww. Stupid lady poked her umbrella into my eye. Eh, it doesn't hurt that much. "Ohhhh, owwww. My eye... It hurts! If only someone would watch where they were going..." Yeah, she probably heard that. Alright, onto home.
How did that guy reacting to this injustice of eye-poking? Did he not notice? He's still there, and still looking upwards. How long can you stare a clouds? Maybe, he's feeling the rain. What a loser.
The rain does feel nice.
Doesn't this guy have work? Doesn't he have school Doesn't he have a family? How does he have time to just sit there? Maybe he has a day off today. But still, he should have so many better things to do. If I had the time he had, I would already be level 100.
I wish I had the time that this guy has. I would be able to do some many other things than just sit in a classroom and listen to the teacher talk. It's not like they have anything good to say anyways. They're always so repetitive. I can't wait until I am free from school. I would finally be able to do what I want, and it's probably going to be more productive.
Oh look, I have the light. Time to go home.
Tuesday, November 17, 2009
Constructivist Exploration of Cool [HW #23]
Aside from the typical "to be cool means to be: different, original, popular, fresh, attention-grabbing, etc.", one thought that have come to my mind about being cool is that the older you get, the easier it is to be cool.
Being cool, of course plays a big role in teenage life, but it seems that its role slowly becomes less and less important. And since it plays such a big role, people just have this high standard of what being cool is. There are certain clothes you wear, have certain way of speech, hang out with certain types people, do certain activities, intake certain types of substances,etc. Of course, all of these varies based on the environment you are in. But it seems that regardless of what the specifics are, if you are older and you do any of those things, you will be instantly be called cool (by teenagers, of course). People have this mentality that old people are "lame" or "wack." So if they do anything remotely cool up to the teenage standards, then they are super-cool, because they are different and breaking out of their roles.
When we talk about coolness, a lot of people say that people are always trying to be cool. But I don't think being cool is what the people are so concerned about. Like people don't try to be cool for the sake of being cool. I think that people act "cool" or "different" because they want to get acknowledged. It goes back to how we are constantly trying to make meaning in our lives- reassuring ourselves that we are a significant being and that we really matter. If someone acts cool, and draws a lot of attention, then they are momentarily significant to the people who are noticing him/her, because that is their current focal point.
If there are cool people, then there are of course losers. Recently, I've noticed that the stigma of being a loser is not as great of an impact any more. Less people are being made fun of because they can keep up with the trend. It might be that I'm maturing and so are the people around me. It might also be that people are just becoming nicer and nicer. But I suspect that it also has to do with the whole cool act. People used to make fun of the losers and were considered cool. That is just what people did. But if everyone is mocking the loser, then the person that stands out would be the one that did the opposite- the person that accepted the loser and talked to him/her. Accepting the person for who they are, and talking to them when no one else will, are both very nice gestures. But if the person is, in fact, doing this because they want to stand out and be cool, then I'm not sure if that's even remotely nice. The "cool" person would be treating the "loser" as though he/she is a tool.
Being cool, of course plays a big role in teenage life, but it seems that its role slowly becomes less and less important. And since it plays such a big role, people just have this high standard of what being cool is. There are certain clothes you wear, have certain way of speech, hang out with certain types people, do certain activities, intake certain types of substances,etc. Of course, all of these varies based on the environment you are in. But it seems that regardless of what the specifics are, if you are older and you do any of those things, you will be instantly be called cool (by teenagers, of course). People have this mentality that old people are "lame" or "wack." So if they do anything remotely cool up to the teenage standards, then they are super-cool, because they are different and breaking out of their roles.
When we talk about coolness, a lot of people say that people are always trying to be cool. But I don't think being cool is what the people are so concerned about. Like people don't try to be cool for the sake of being cool. I think that people act "cool" or "different" because they want to get acknowledged. It goes back to how we are constantly trying to make meaning in our lives- reassuring ourselves that we are a significant being and that we really matter. If someone acts cool, and draws a lot of attention, then they are momentarily significant to the people who are noticing him/her, because that is their current focal point.
If there are cool people, then there are of course losers. Recently, I've noticed that the stigma of being a loser is not as great of an impact any more. Less people are being made fun of because they can keep up with the trend. It might be that I'm maturing and so are the people around me. It might also be that people are just becoming nicer and nicer. But I suspect that it also has to do with the whole cool act. People used to make fun of the losers and were considered cool. That is just what people did. But if everyone is mocking the loser, then the person that stands out would be the one that did the opposite- the person that accepted the loser and talked to him/her. Accepting the person for who they are, and talking to them when no one else will, are both very nice gestures. But if the person is, in fact, doing this because they want to stand out and be cool, then I'm not sure if that's even remotely nice. The "cool" person would be treating the "loser" as though he/she is a tool.
Monday, November 16, 2009
"And Thus Did Man Become the Architects of Its Own Demise"
Architects of Its Own Demise from Andy on Vimeo.
1. Is your art a hammer or a mirror? Why?
This piece of art is a mirror, as intended. It does not stimulate a need to change in our lifestyles, nor does it shape them. It is no hammer- simply a really cool mirror that reflects on our interaction with, and impression of digital representational devices. If anything, the original clips would be the hammer; my video is merely an alteration that allows me to fulfill my duty as a student trying to earn his grade.
2. Does your art make you fink and theel? What are some of your own reactions to your art?
Hmm...what does my art make me fink and theel? Well, while I was watching/re-watching the Animatrix clips, and trying to create some sort of theme to my video, I noticed that there are many parallels between this futuristic world, and our current world. One parallel would be that we both exploit our resources. We take everything for granted, and think that everything is there for us to take; everything belongs to the humans.
Another thought that was triggered by my video was that based on this, the robots have become more natural than us. We are slowly turn into these mechanical beings where everything is done for us without thought. We think that we have our own input in things, but we are actually just programmed to do whatever it takes to get job done (e.g. killing off the robots/their sources of labor in fear that the robots will take over). Although the robots in here follow the same concept, they can at least say that they did things with their own hands.
I think that this video also shows that, we always try to take control of the world, but instead we are the ones who always get dominated. We think we are the ones that are manipulating the DRDs/robots, but in fact, they are the Lords of Trance (hence the song choice).
3. What was the most interesting aspect of your making of the art?
The most interesting aspect of me making this art would probably be the fact that I never really finish any of these AMV (anime music videos). I guess this assignment gave me the incentive to finish this one.
Monday, November 9, 2009
ALL SHALL RETURN TO THE VOID (EXDEATH)
Introduction:
Digital technology has, without a doubt, an engulfing effect. Digitalization has taken over many aspects of our lives. The things we see, the things we listen to, the way we interact- they have all been manipulated so that it can be more accessible to us through digital representational devices (DRDs). Anyone would, of course, tell you that they are well aware that these simulations are not authentic and are distorting our perception of world. There is a consensus about the effects of digitalization; most people would agree that it alienates us from the world, and wastes our time. However, we continue to obsessively use these DRDs, neglecting our realizations about digitalization- as though, our thoughts should not matter when we're submerging ourselves into this world. We are imprisoned by our own way of digitalization. We knowingly continue to live our faux-lives, returning to our internet profiles regardless of what our thoughts and feelings tell us.
Argument #1: Way of Life
“That’s just how it is” (Interviewee). There is a general belief that digitalization is engraved into our lifestyles. We believe that since digitalization has such a lasting role thus far, it is here to stay. We have already come to accept it as a part of life- as a medium that connects us with society and the rest of the world. Without it, we will fail to succeed in society socially and economically, or at least that is what we believe. Even now, as I am writing this essay on my blog, I feel as though my desire to succeed academically is binding me to the computer. Digital technology is now perceived as a necessity, rather than a privilege. In a way, it has become the way to communicate; everything else is marginal. We’ve taken in DRDs as a major part of our lives, because we directly associate communication with DRDs. And we constantly return to DRDs because if we were to forfeit them, we would be forfeiting our way of communication, and our connections with the rest of the world.
We are at a point where “the internet has become the default playground of our society” (Carrie L). DRDs play such a big role in our way of communication that we passively accept it into our lives, hardly ever reconsidering an alternative method. We constantly go back to DRDs because it is the set way of communication, as is drinking water, eating food and inhaling oxygen are the set ways of survival. As portrayed by M.T. Anderson in his allegory Feed, these pieces of digital technology have been implanted into our lives. The characters have chips, known as the Feed, that are literally implanted into their heads, and they monitor and influence everything the person is thinking and feeling. “Her spine was, I didn’t know the word. Her spine was like…? The feed suggested ‘supple.’” (14). Not only do these characters communicate through the feeds, like we do with AIM or MSN or whatever, but these chips in their heads prompt them with what they have to say.
In a very similar manner, we too rely on our "feeds" to tell us what to think. Much of our attention goes to what is happening online, who said what on Facebook, what comments are you receiving, even when we're not physically in front of digital screen. The internet, itself decides on how we interact with one another. It has already been incorporated into our lifestyles. Without our feeds we too wouldn’t know what to think, or how to properly socialize. We would lose our way of life, and be stuck in a state of mental immobility.
Wall-E, another representation of our lives, demonstrates that we cannot escape DRDs because it has become an all-surrounding part of our lives. From what was seen in class, the people in the movie are all moving along a set track, as they are distracted by the flowing screen put directly in front of their faces. These people are blindly staring and accepting what is presented to them. And when they are told, “try blue, it's the new red,” they did just that. These DRDs are shoved right in front of our faces, and play such a large role in our lives, that we do not avoid because we think we can’t avoid it. The only path that seems available to us would be the same path we’ve been following most of our lives: an arbitrary path that consists of a physical world replaced by holographic screens.
We constantly return to digitalization because we see it as a requirement. These rectangular glowing devices aren’t just tools for us to watch numbers grow larger, as more people comment on our lives, but they’re tools that help you fulfill your societal needs. We see them as figures that cover many aspects of our lives. Regardless of what the situation might be, DRDs will be the medium that connects us with it. Having such lives that revolve so much around these objects, we have to continue to take the easy path, and continue to return to the DRDs.
Argument #2: Safe Zone
The sanctuary is behind the glowing screen. We strive to be in a place that is both comfortable and empowering- and what better place is there than the internet? We can control our identities, manipulate other's perceptions more easily, pick out what we see and hear, and be cool. There is an expectation that everyone has to act as a reflection of the positive energy that other people send them. And most people try to meet this expectation. Everyone has to be nice; everyone has to be charming; everyone has to be funny; and everyone has “lol” at every dumb statement. If done successfully, the person’s chances of developing a more “intimate” relationship with the other person. But of course, hardly anyone can act this way all the time- unless they’re on the internet.
We are, for the most part, well aware that we put on these false identities when we’re chatting away online. “You have no idea who you are, so you're experiment which one is more likeable” (John L). We want to be liked, so we project ourselves in whatever form that will appeal to more people. And when we’re online, our identities are more easily adjustable. However, when we’re in the outside world, such an alteration is not as accessible; in that we are much more perceivable. If a person allows their internet profiles completely overlap their physical lives, they would be called a “fake” or a “phony,” at least that’s what my observations have told me. We return to DRDs and the internet, because that would never be the issue. Everyone is trying to act nice, and managing their coolness. No one will ever try to blow off anyone’s mask, because they’re so preoccupied in trying to project their own. Your faux-identities are safe, and forever-growing.
Given the opportunity to be who they want, people are more inclined to use DRDs to project themselves, even when believing that being “someone who you’re not” is a negative thing. In an interview with the employee at Yogurberry, I asked him why he thought people would choose to text and use the computer over sports. He responded by saying, “It's more fun to talk on phone. And I become more fun on the phone.” There is some sort of distortion caused by the phone that allows the person to be more “fun.” The interviewee also added, “I am more confident when I am in front of the computer. People become more social through technology.” Again, having this indirect connection with another person allows the user to alter their personalities. This particular interviewee didn’t appear too ashamed about this habit of using DRDs to seem more “fun.” However, do know that this person is a person who said, “You feel more alive when you're playing sports and actively moving.” So even though there is a better option, sports, that make you feel more “alive,” this individual, along with many others, chose to be fun and confident through the phone.
Even though being someone you’re not is considered bad, and there are options are considered to make you feel more “alive,” people continue to return to DRDs. There’s something about having this invisible, digital wall that allows any person to seem like a better, more ideal version of him/her. And with that, DRDs are more appealing to the people, even though it alienates us from our identities. We’re living these fake lives through DRDs, because we can finally become what we sought out to be, without any real effort.
Argument #3: Instant Gratification (Cowboy Paragraphs)
Gavin, in his HW 14 about Everything Bad Is Good For You, talked about "instant gratification." He says, "With Feed TV shows, they don't necessarily need to concern themselves with cognitive advancement, only with pulp entertainment, as everything is instant gratification." Being that Feed is an allegory of our lives, we also follow this pattern. We have this desire for quick, and visual possessions. And DRDs are able to provide that to us.
In Everything Bad is Good For You, Johnson describes this "instant gratification" as "just as Tetris streamlines he fuzzy world of visual reality to a core set of interacting shapes, most games offer a fictional world where rewards are larger, and more vivid, more clearly defined, than life" (Johnson, 37). DRDs easily fulfill our needs for visual representation of approval, which would otherwise be difficult to gain. We return to using DRDs, because it satisfies that need.
Opposing Point of View:
DRDs have their benefits as well; therefore it is okay for us to use them. If we emphasize on them enough, we have a legitimate excuse to continue on this path to doom. In Everything Bad is Good For You, Johnson mentions on several occasions that we are the ones in control. When we are watching television, playing video games, or using the internet, we are the manipulators not the manipulated. Through DRDs, we are “learning to lead.” Of course this is, to some extent true. We do these things based on our own senses of judgment. And based on Johnson’s argument, “it’s not about tolerating or aestheticizing chaos; it’s about finding order and meaning in the world, and making decisions that help create that order” (62). We are constantly stimulating our brains through DRDs, and making sense of the situation provided by them. According to Johnson, we are the ones that are in control; we decide on what we do on our DRDs, and how much of it.
From my experience, I never sought to play video games, or to watch television in hopes of “finding order and meaning in the world.” I just do them because it’s part of my connection with other people. These distractions act as common grounds for people to network in. However, if we keep believing that video games, television, and the internet yield such great benefits (I’m not saying that they don’t hold any at all), we can continue to be consumed by DRDs, without feeling any guilt. But as it is displayed in Feed, the characters are given the access to instant knowledge, and yet they’re extremely ignorant. Although our education is not as instantaneous, we still do not take advantage of DRDs in that aspect. But since we’re not actually taking control, we’re still caught in these daily cycles of logging on to our internet lives. At least now, we can return to our DRDs with an excuse.
Even if we did seek for education through DRDs, the amount of distraction caused by them outweighs the knowledge it brings. “After all, "never have the opportunities for education, learning, political action, and cultural activity been greater," writes Bauerlein, a former director of Research and Analysis at the National Endowment for the Arts. But somehow, he contends, the much-ballyhooed advances of this brave new world have not only failed to materialize - they've actually made us dumber” (Drutman). Our generation is getting dumber, even though technology is becoming more advance, making them more accessible for education. With that, we actually do not have a grasp of our digital lives. We’re merely puppets that believe we’re making our own movements. But in fact, we’re just continuing this cycle of DRDs, lying to ourselves so we would feel better about the experience.
Connection:
Having such a cycle of constantly returning to DRDs connects to the website that John posted on his blog: The Story of Stuff. The website emphasizes on the repetition of "work, ads telling you you suck, shop, work to shop and repeat." We're follow this meaningless cycle of buying stuff that you would eventually throw out, for the same reasons we keep using DRDs. We follow this consumer cycle because we believe it's part of our lives. It's down on such a regular basis, we do not see it as something wrong. Buying stuff is also a display of wealth, in order to project your status in society, you would have to buy visual representations. This cycle also provides both a sense of comfort and confidence, and instant gratification. There are certain many parallels between different aspects of our way of life. In this case, there are parallels between our usage of DRDs and the way we consume.
Conclusion/Significance:
Allowing DRDs to play such a big role in our lives is contributing to our collapse. We’re living and reliving a lifestyle that blinds us from the problems that are in front of us. Soon enough, if not already happening, we will be like the characters in Wall-E- completely unaware of everything that surrounds us. The glowing screen that is put directly in front of our faces will be the only thing that is of our concern. Being aware of that DRDs alienate us, and distract us from the physical world is, of course, important. However, with that knowledge we continue to interact with DRDs throughout most of our days. Understanding why we continue this cycle can, perhaps, allow us to consider alternatives, maybe see that we don't really need DRDs, and that they're just an option that we choose to follow by. Rather than saying it's simply engraved in our lifestyles, we can start to see that it can actually be a replaceable, insignificant part of our lives. Instead of saying that it acts as a haven that allows us to comfortably socialize, and become the person we want to be, we can begin to do that in face-to-face interactions. And instead of returning to DRDs for the instant gratification, we can reconsider our values and what we consider meaningful, or obtain instant gratification in some other source. Seeing how we are trapped in this cycle allow us to be free, at least freer than before. DRDs, as of now, plays such a big role in our lives. It is not enough to just say they're bad, but that wouldn't give us an incentive to change; we wouldn't know which parts to change in order to avoid this lifestyle. Pointing out just a few reasons can hopefully cause some change. Although, DRDs will not become extinct from our lives, it would still be a step forward (maybe) if we trimmed it down a bit, or at least find some meaning to all the time we spend in front of the screen.
Works Cited:
- Anderson, M.T. Feed. 1st. Somerville,Massachusetts: Candlewick Press, 2007. 97. Print.
- Johnson, Steven. Everything Bad is Good For you. New York: Riverhead Books, 2005. 123. Print.
- L, Carrie. "HW 14: Second Text." (2009): 1. Web. 12 Nov 2009.
< http://personalpoliticalbycarrie.blogspot.com/2009/10/hw-14-second-text.html >.
- L, John. "HW 14 New Text." (2009): 1. Web. 12 Nov 2009. < http://personalpoliticaljohnl.blogspot.com/2009/10/hw-14-new-text.html >.
- Leonard, Annie. "The Story of Stuff." Free Range Studios (2009): n. pag. Web. 12 Nov 2009. < http://storyofstuff.com/index.html >
- M, Gavin. "HW 14." (2009): 1. Web. 12 Nov 2009.
< http://quitetheconundrummydear.blogspot.com/2009/10/14draft.html >.
- Drutman, Lee. "'The Dumbest Generation' by Mark Bauerlein." Los Angeles Time (2008): 1. Web. 12 Nov 2009. < http://www.latimes.com/entertainment/la-et-book5-2008jul05,0,6248930.story/index.html >.
Digital technology has, without a doubt, an engulfing effect. Digitalization has taken over many aspects of our lives. The things we see, the things we listen to, the way we interact- they have all been manipulated so that it can be more accessible to us through digital representational devices (DRDs). Anyone would, of course, tell you that they are well aware that these simulations are not authentic and are distorting our perception of world. There is a consensus about the effects of digitalization; most people would agree that it alienates us from the world, and wastes our time. However, we continue to obsessively use these DRDs, neglecting our realizations about digitalization- as though, our thoughts should not matter when we're submerging ourselves into this world. We are imprisoned by our own way of digitalization. We knowingly continue to live our faux-lives, returning to our internet profiles regardless of what our thoughts and feelings tell us.
Argument #1: Way of Life
“That’s just how it is” (Interviewee). There is a general belief that digitalization is engraved into our lifestyles. We believe that since digitalization has such a lasting role thus far, it is here to stay. We have already come to accept it as a part of life- as a medium that connects us with society and the rest of the world. Without it, we will fail to succeed in society socially and economically, or at least that is what we believe. Even now, as I am writing this essay on my blog, I feel as though my desire to succeed academically is binding me to the computer. Digital technology is now perceived as a necessity, rather than a privilege. In a way, it has become the way to communicate; everything else is marginal. We’ve taken in DRDs as a major part of our lives, because we directly associate communication with DRDs. And we constantly return to DRDs because if we were to forfeit them, we would be forfeiting our way of communication, and our connections with the rest of the world.
We are at a point where “the internet has become the default playground of our society” (Carrie L). DRDs play such a big role in our way of communication that we passively accept it into our lives, hardly ever reconsidering an alternative method. We constantly go back to DRDs because it is the set way of communication, as is drinking water, eating food and inhaling oxygen are the set ways of survival. As portrayed by M.T. Anderson in his allegory Feed, these pieces of digital technology have been implanted into our lives. The characters have chips, known as the Feed, that are literally implanted into their heads, and they monitor and influence everything the person is thinking and feeling. “Her spine was, I didn’t know the word. Her spine was like…? The feed suggested ‘supple.’” (14). Not only do these characters communicate through the feeds, like we do with AIM or MSN or whatever, but these chips in their heads prompt them with what they have to say.
In a very similar manner, we too rely on our "feeds" to tell us what to think. Much of our attention goes to what is happening online, who said what on Facebook, what comments are you receiving, even when we're not physically in front of digital screen. The internet, itself decides on how we interact with one another. It has already been incorporated into our lifestyles. Without our feeds we too wouldn’t know what to think, or how to properly socialize. We would lose our way of life, and be stuck in a state of mental immobility.
Wall-E, another representation of our lives, demonstrates that we cannot escape DRDs because it has become an all-surrounding part of our lives. From what was seen in class, the people in the movie are all moving along a set track, as they are distracted by the flowing screen put directly in front of their faces. These people are blindly staring and accepting what is presented to them. And when they are told, “try blue, it's the new red,” they did just that. These DRDs are shoved right in front of our faces, and play such a large role in our lives, that we do not avoid because we think we can’t avoid it. The only path that seems available to us would be the same path we’ve been following most of our lives: an arbitrary path that consists of a physical world replaced by holographic screens.
We constantly return to digitalization because we see it as a requirement. These rectangular glowing devices aren’t just tools for us to watch numbers grow larger, as more people comment on our lives, but they’re tools that help you fulfill your societal needs. We see them as figures that cover many aspects of our lives. Regardless of what the situation might be, DRDs will be the medium that connects us with it. Having such lives that revolve so much around these objects, we have to continue to take the easy path, and continue to return to the DRDs.
Argument #2: Safe Zone
The sanctuary is behind the glowing screen. We strive to be in a place that is both comfortable and empowering- and what better place is there than the internet? We can control our identities, manipulate other's perceptions more easily, pick out what we see and hear, and be cool. There is an expectation that everyone has to act as a reflection of the positive energy that other people send them. And most people try to meet this expectation. Everyone has to be nice; everyone has to be charming; everyone has to be funny; and everyone has “lol” at every dumb statement. If done successfully, the person’s chances of developing a more “intimate” relationship with the other person. But of course, hardly anyone can act this way all the time- unless they’re on the internet.
We are, for the most part, well aware that we put on these false identities when we’re chatting away online. “You have no idea who you are, so you're experiment which one is more likeable” (John L). We want to be liked, so we project ourselves in whatever form that will appeal to more people. And when we’re online, our identities are more easily adjustable. However, when we’re in the outside world, such an alteration is not as accessible; in that we are much more perceivable. If a person allows their internet profiles completely overlap their physical lives, they would be called a “fake” or a “phony,” at least that’s what my observations have told me. We return to DRDs and the internet, because that would never be the issue. Everyone is trying to act nice, and managing their coolness. No one will ever try to blow off anyone’s mask, because they’re so preoccupied in trying to project their own. Your faux-identities are safe, and forever-growing.
Given the opportunity to be who they want, people are more inclined to use DRDs to project themselves, even when believing that being “someone who you’re not” is a negative thing. In an interview with the employee at Yogurberry, I asked him why he thought people would choose to text and use the computer over sports. He responded by saying, “It's more fun to talk on phone. And I become more fun on the phone.” There is some sort of distortion caused by the phone that allows the person to be more “fun.” The interviewee also added, “I am more confident when I am in front of the computer. People become more social through technology.” Again, having this indirect connection with another person allows the user to alter their personalities. This particular interviewee didn’t appear too ashamed about this habit of using DRDs to seem more “fun.” However, do know that this person is a person who said, “You feel more alive when you're playing sports and actively moving.” So even though there is a better option, sports, that make you feel more “alive,” this individual, along with many others, chose to be fun and confident through the phone.
Even though being someone you’re not is considered bad, and there are options are considered to make you feel more “alive,” people continue to return to DRDs. There’s something about having this invisible, digital wall that allows any person to seem like a better, more ideal version of him/her. And with that, DRDs are more appealing to the people, even though it alienates us from our identities. We’re living these fake lives through DRDs, because we can finally become what we sought out to be, without any real effort.
Argument #3: Instant Gratification (Cowboy Paragraphs)
Gavin, in his HW 14 about Everything Bad Is Good For You, talked about "instant gratification." He says, "With Feed TV shows, they don't necessarily need to concern themselves with cognitive advancement, only with pulp entertainment, as everything is instant gratification." Being that Feed is an allegory of our lives, we also follow this pattern. We have this desire for quick, and visual possessions. And DRDs are able to provide that to us.
In Everything Bad is Good For You, Johnson describes this "instant gratification" as "just as Tetris streamlines he fuzzy world of visual reality to a core set of interacting shapes, most games offer a fictional world where rewards are larger, and more vivid, more clearly defined, than life" (Johnson, 37). DRDs easily fulfill our needs for visual representation of approval, which would otherwise be difficult to gain. We return to using DRDs, because it satisfies that need.
Opposing Point of View:
DRDs have their benefits as well; therefore it is okay for us to use them. If we emphasize on them enough, we have a legitimate excuse to continue on this path to doom. In Everything Bad is Good For You, Johnson mentions on several occasions that we are the ones in control. When we are watching television, playing video games, or using the internet, we are the manipulators not the manipulated. Through DRDs, we are “learning to lead.” Of course this is, to some extent true. We do these things based on our own senses of judgment. And based on Johnson’s argument, “it’s not about tolerating or aestheticizing chaos; it’s about finding order and meaning in the world, and making decisions that help create that order” (62). We are constantly stimulating our brains through DRDs, and making sense of the situation provided by them. According to Johnson, we are the ones that are in control; we decide on what we do on our DRDs, and how much of it.
From my experience, I never sought to play video games, or to watch television in hopes of “finding order and meaning in the world.” I just do them because it’s part of my connection with other people. These distractions act as common grounds for people to network in. However, if we keep believing that video games, television, and the internet yield such great benefits (I’m not saying that they don’t hold any at all), we can continue to be consumed by DRDs, without feeling any guilt. But as it is displayed in Feed, the characters are given the access to instant knowledge, and yet they’re extremely ignorant. Although our education is not as instantaneous, we still do not take advantage of DRDs in that aspect. But since we’re not actually taking control, we’re still caught in these daily cycles of logging on to our internet lives. At least now, we can return to our DRDs with an excuse.
Even if we did seek for education through DRDs, the amount of distraction caused by them outweighs the knowledge it brings. “After all, "never have the opportunities for education, learning, political action, and cultural activity been greater," writes Bauerlein, a former director of Research and Analysis at the National Endowment for the Arts. But somehow, he contends, the much-ballyhooed advances of this brave new world have not only failed to materialize - they've actually made us dumber” (Drutman). Our generation is getting dumber, even though technology is becoming more advance, making them more accessible for education. With that, we actually do not have a grasp of our digital lives. We’re merely puppets that believe we’re making our own movements. But in fact, we’re just continuing this cycle of DRDs, lying to ourselves so we would feel better about the experience.
Connection:
Having such a cycle of constantly returning to DRDs connects to the website that John posted on his blog: The Story of Stuff. The website emphasizes on the repetition of "work, ads telling you you suck, shop, work to shop and repeat." We're follow this meaningless cycle of buying stuff that you would eventually throw out, for the same reasons we keep using DRDs. We follow this consumer cycle because we believe it's part of our lives. It's down on such a regular basis, we do not see it as something wrong. Buying stuff is also a display of wealth, in order to project your status in society, you would have to buy visual representations. This cycle also provides both a sense of comfort and confidence, and instant gratification. There are certain many parallels between different aspects of our way of life. In this case, there are parallels between our usage of DRDs and the way we consume.
Conclusion/Significance:
Allowing DRDs to play such a big role in our lives is contributing to our collapse. We’re living and reliving a lifestyle that blinds us from the problems that are in front of us. Soon enough, if not already happening, we will be like the characters in Wall-E- completely unaware of everything that surrounds us. The glowing screen that is put directly in front of our faces will be the only thing that is of our concern. Being aware of that DRDs alienate us, and distract us from the physical world is, of course, important. However, with that knowledge we continue to interact with DRDs throughout most of our days. Understanding why we continue this cycle can, perhaps, allow us to consider alternatives, maybe see that we don't really need DRDs, and that they're just an option that we choose to follow by. Rather than saying it's simply engraved in our lifestyles, we can start to see that it can actually be a replaceable, insignificant part of our lives. Instead of saying that it acts as a haven that allows us to comfortably socialize, and become the person we want to be, we can begin to do that in face-to-face interactions. And instead of returning to DRDs for the instant gratification, we can reconsider our values and what we consider meaningful, or obtain instant gratification in some other source. Seeing how we are trapped in this cycle allow us to be free, at least freer than before. DRDs, as of now, plays such a big role in our lives. It is not enough to just say they're bad, but that wouldn't give us an incentive to change; we wouldn't know which parts to change in order to avoid this lifestyle. Pointing out just a few reasons can hopefully cause some change. Although, DRDs will not become extinct from our lives, it would still be a step forward (maybe) if we trimmed it down a bit, or at least find some meaning to all the time we spend in front of the screen.
Works Cited:
- Anderson, M.T. Feed. 1st. Somerville,Massachusetts: Candlewick Press, 2007. 97. Print.
- Johnson, Steven. Everything Bad is Good For you. New York: Riverhead Books, 2005. 123. Print.
- L, Carrie. "HW 14: Second Text." (2009): 1. Web. 12 Nov 2009.
< http://personalpoliticalbycarrie.blogspot.com/2009/10/hw-14-second-text.html >.
- L, John. "HW 14 New Text." (2009): 1. Web. 12 Nov 2009. < http://personalpoliticaljohnl.blogspot.com/2009/10/hw-14-new-text.html >.
- Leonard, Annie. "The Story of Stuff." Free Range Studios (2009): n. pag. Web. 12 Nov 2009. < http://storyofstuff.com/index.html >
- M, Gavin. "HW 14." (2009): 1. Web. 12 Nov 2009.
< http://quitetheconundrummydear.blogspot.com/2009/10/14draft.html >.
- Drutman, Lee. "'The Dumbest Generation' by Mark Bauerlein." Los Angeles Time (2008): 1. Web. 12 Nov 2009. < http://www.latimes.com/entertainment/la-et-book5-2008jul05,0,6248930.story/index.html >.
Sunday, November 8, 2009
Revised Rough Draft [HW #20]
Digital technology has, without a doubt, an engulfing effect. Digitalization has taken over many aspects of our lives. The things we see, the things we listen to, the way we interact- they have all been manipulated so that it can be more accessible to us through digital representational devices (DRDs). Anyone would, of course, tell you that they are well aware that these stimulations are not authentic and are distorting our perception of world. There is a consensus about the effects of digitalization; most people would agree that it alienates us from the world, and wastes our time. However, we continue to obsessively use these DRDs, neglecting our realizations about digitalization- as though, our thoughts should not matter when we're submerging ourselves into this world. We are imprisoned by our own way of digitalization. We knowingly continue to live our faux-lives, returning to our internet profiles regardless of what our thoughts and feelings tell us.
“That’s just how it is” (Interviewee). There is a general belief that digitalization is engraved into our lifestyles. We believe that since digitalization has such a lasting role thus far, it is here to stay. We have already come to accept it as a part of life- as a medium that connects us with society and the rest of the world. Without it, we will fail to succeed in society socially and economically, or at least that is what we believe. Even now, as I am writing this essay on my blog, I feel as though my desire to succeed academically is binding me to the computer. Digital technology is now perceived as a necessity, rather than a privilege. In a way, it has become the way to communicate; everything else is marginal. We’ve taken in DRDs as a major part of our lives, because we directly associate communication with DRDs. And we constantly return to DRDs because if we were to forfeit them, we would be forfeiting our way of communication, and our connections with the rest of the world.
We are at a point where “the internet has become the default playground of our society” (Carrie L). DRDs play such a big role in our way of communication that we passively accept it into our lives, hardly ever reconsidering an alternative method. We constantly go back to DRDs because it is the set way of communication, as is drinking water, eating food and inhaling oxygen are the set ways of survival. As portrayed by M.T. Anderson in his allegory Feed, these pieces of digital technology have been implanted into our lives. The characters have chips, known as the Feed, that are literally implanted into their heads, and they monitor and influence everything the person is thinking and feeling. “Her spine was, I didn’t know the word. Her spine was like…? The feed suggested ‘supple.’” (14). Not only do these characters communicate through the feeds, like we do with AIM or MSN or whatever, but these chips in their heads prompt them with what they have to say.
In a very similar manner, we too rely on our "feeds" to tell us what to think. Much of our attention goes to what is happening online, who said what on Facebook, what comments are you receiving, even when we're not physically in front of digital screen. The internet, itself decides on how we interact with one another. It has already been incorporated into our lifestyles. Without our feeds we too wouldn’t know what to think, or how to properly socialize. We would lose our way of life, and be stuck in a state of mental immobility.
Wall-E, another representation of our lives, demonstrates that we cannot escape DRDs because it has become an all-surrounding part of our lives. From what was seen in class, the people in the movie are all moving along a set track, as they are distracted by the flowing screen put directly in front of their faces. These people are blindly staring and accepting what is presented to them. And when they are told, “try blue, it's the new red,” they did just that. These DRDs are shoved right in front of our faces, and play such a large role in our lives, that we do not avoid because we think we can’t avoid it. The only path that seems available to us would be the same path we’ve been following most of our lives: an arbitrary path that consists of a physical world replaced by holographic screens.
The sanctuary is behind the glowing screen. We strive to be in a place that is both comfortable and empowering- and what better place is there than the internet? We can control our identities, manipulate other's perceptions more easily, pick out what we see and hear, and be cool. There is an expectation that everyone has to act as a reflection of the positive energy that other people send them. And most people try to meet this expectation. Everyone has to be nice; everyone has to be charming; everyone has to be funny; and everyone has “lol” at every dumb statement. If done successfully, the person’s chances of developing a more “intimate” relationship with the other person. But of course, hardly anyone can act this way all the time- unless they’re on the internet.
We are, for the most part, well aware that we put on these false identities when we’re chatting away online. “You have no idea who you are, so you're experiment which one is more likeable” (John L). We want to be liked, so we project ourselves in whatever form that will appeal to more people. And when we’re online, our identities are more easily adjustable. However, when we’re in the outside world, such an alteration is not as accessible; in that we are much more perceivable. If a person allows their internet profiles completely overlap their physical lives, they would be called a “fake” or a “phony,” at least that’s what my observations have told me. We return to DRDs and the internet, because that would never be the issue. Everyone is trying to act nice, and managing their coolness. No one will ever try to blow off anyone’s mask, because they’re so preoccupied in trying to project their own. Your faux-identities are safe, and forever-growing.
Given the opportunity to be who they want, people are more inclined to use DRDs to project themselves, even when believing that being “someone who you’re not” is a negative thing. In an interview with the employee at Yogurberry, I asked him why he thought people would choose to text and use the computer over sports. He responded by saying, “It's more fun to talk on phone. And I become more fun on the phone.” There is some sort of distortion caused by the phone that allows the person to be more “fun.” The interviewee also added, “I am more confident when I am in front of the computer. People become more social through technology.” Again, having this indirect connection with another person allows the user to alter their personalities. This particular interviewee didn’t appear too ashamed about this habit of using DRDs to seem more “fun.” However, do know that this person is a person who said, “You feel more alive when you're playing sports and actively moving.” So even though there is a better option, sports, that make you feel more “alive,” this individual, along with many others, chose to be fun and confident through the phone.
DRDs have their benefits as well; therefore it is okay for us to use them. If we emphasize on them enough, we have a legitimate excuse to continue on this path to doom. In Everything Bad is Good For You, Johnson mentions on several occasions that we are the ones in control. When we are watching television, playing video games, or using the internet, we are the manipulators not the manipulated. Through DRDs, we are “learning to lead.” Of course this is, to some extent true. We do these things based on our own senses of judgment. And based on Johnson’s argument, “it’s not about tolerating or aestheticizing chaos; it’s about finding order and meaning in the world, and making decisions that help create that order” (62). We are constantly stimulating our brains through DRDs, and making sense of the situation provided by them. According to Johnson, we are the ones that are in control; we decide on what we do on our DRDs, and how much of it.
From my experience, I never sought to play video games, or to watch television in hopes of “finding order and meaning in the world.” I just do them because it’s part of my connection with other people. These distractions act as common grounds for people to network in. However, if we keep believing that video games, television, and the internet yield such great benefits (I’m not saying that they don’t hold any at all), we can continue to be consumed by DRDs, without feeling any guilt. But as it is displayed in Feed, the characters are given the access to instant knowledge, and yet they’re extremely ignorant. Although our education is not as instanteous, we still do not take advantage of DRDs in that aspect. But since we’re not actually taking control, we’re still caught in these daily cycles of logging on to our internet lives. At least now, we can return to our DRDs with an excuse.
Even if we did seek for education through DRDs, the amount of distraction caused by them outweighs the knowledge it brings. “After all, "never have the opportunities for education, learning, political action, and cultural activity been greater," writes Bauerlein, a former director of Research and Analysis at the National Endowment for the Arts. But somehow, he contends, the much-ballyhooed advances of this brave new world have not only failed to materialize -- they've actually made us dumber” (Drutman). Our generation is getting dumber, even though technology is becoming more advance, making them more accessible for education. With that, we actually do not have a grasp of our digital lives. We’re merely puppets that believe we’re making our own movements. But in fact, we’re just continuing this cycle of DRDs, lying to ourselves so we would feel better about the experience.
There is always a tug that draws us back to DRDs. This tug may not be a strong one, as it is not something forces us to return to our digital homes, but we do allow ourselves to give into it. Having a life filled with DRDs is nearly inevitable, given the society and situation that we are in. DRDs are the cores of our academic/work lives, our social lives, and our pleasures. We are surrounded by these essentials that act as walls to imprison us with the DRDs. As a result, we are caught in a cycle where we would always have to interact with DRDs. And for now, this cycle seems inescapable.
“That’s just how it is” (Interviewee). There is a general belief that digitalization is engraved into our lifestyles. We believe that since digitalization has such a lasting role thus far, it is here to stay. We have already come to accept it as a part of life- as a medium that connects us with society and the rest of the world. Without it, we will fail to succeed in society socially and economically, or at least that is what we believe. Even now, as I am writing this essay on my blog, I feel as though my desire to succeed academically is binding me to the computer. Digital technology is now perceived as a necessity, rather than a privilege. In a way, it has become the way to communicate; everything else is marginal. We’ve taken in DRDs as a major part of our lives, because we directly associate communication with DRDs. And we constantly return to DRDs because if we were to forfeit them, we would be forfeiting our way of communication, and our connections with the rest of the world.
We are at a point where “the internet has become the default playground of our society” (Carrie L). DRDs play such a big role in our way of communication that we passively accept it into our lives, hardly ever reconsidering an alternative method. We constantly go back to DRDs because it is the set way of communication, as is drinking water, eating food and inhaling oxygen are the set ways of survival. As portrayed by M.T. Anderson in his allegory Feed, these pieces of digital technology have been implanted into our lives. The characters have chips, known as the Feed, that are literally implanted into their heads, and they monitor and influence everything the person is thinking and feeling. “Her spine was, I didn’t know the word. Her spine was like…? The feed suggested ‘supple.’” (14). Not only do these characters communicate through the feeds, like we do with AIM or MSN or whatever, but these chips in their heads prompt them with what they have to say.
In a very similar manner, we too rely on our "feeds" to tell us what to think. Much of our attention goes to what is happening online, who said what on Facebook, what comments are you receiving, even when we're not physically in front of digital screen. The internet, itself decides on how we interact with one another. It has already been incorporated into our lifestyles. Without our feeds we too wouldn’t know what to think, or how to properly socialize. We would lose our way of life, and be stuck in a state of mental immobility.
Wall-E, another representation of our lives, demonstrates that we cannot escape DRDs because it has become an all-surrounding part of our lives. From what was seen in class, the people in the movie are all moving along a set track, as they are distracted by the flowing screen put directly in front of their faces. These people are blindly staring and accepting what is presented to them. And when they are told, “try blue, it's the new red,” they did just that. These DRDs are shoved right in front of our faces, and play such a large role in our lives, that we do not avoid because we think we can’t avoid it. The only path that seems available to us would be the same path we’ve been following most of our lives: an arbitrary path that consists of a physical world replaced by holographic screens.
The sanctuary is behind the glowing screen. We strive to be in a place that is both comfortable and empowering- and what better place is there than the internet? We can control our identities, manipulate other's perceptions more easily, pick out what we see and hear, and be cool. There is an expectation that everyone has to act as a reflection of the positive energy that other people send them. And most people try to meet this expectation. Everyone has to be nice; everyone has to be charming; everyone has to be funny; and everyone has “lol” at every dumb statement. If done successfully, the person’s chances of developing a more “intimate” relationship with the other person. But of course, hardly anyone can act this way all the time- unless they’re on the internet.
We are, for the most part, well aware that we put on these false identities when we’re chatting away online. “You have no idea who you are, so you're experiment which one is more likeable” (John L). We want to be liked, so we project ourselves in whatever form that will appeal to more people. And when we’re online, our identities are more easily adjustable. However, when we’re in the outside world, such an alteration is not as accessible; in that we are much more perceivable. If a person allows their internet profiles completely overlap their physical lives, they would be called a “fake” or a “phony,” at least that’s what my observations have told me. We return to DRDs and the internet, because that would never be the issue. Everyone is trying to act nice, and managing their coolness. No one will ever try to blow off anyone’s mask, because they’re so preoccupied in trying to project their own. Your faux-identities are safe, and forever-growing.
Given the opportunity to be who they want, people are more inclined to use DRDs to project themselves, even when believing that being “someone who you’re not” is a negative thing. In an interview with the employee at Yogurberry, I asked him why he thought people would choose to text and use the computer over sports. He responded by saying, “It's more fun to talk on phone. And I become more fun on the phone.” There is some sort of distortion caused by the phone that allows the person to be more “fun.” The interviewee also added, “I am more confident when I am in front of the computer. People become more social through technology.” Again, having this indirect connection with another person allows the user to alter their personalities. This particular interviewee didn’t appear too ashamed about this habit of using DRDs to seem more “fun.” However, do know that this person is a person who said, “You feel more alive when you're playing sports and actively moving.” So even though there is a better option, sports, that make you feel more “alive,” this individual, along with many others, chose to be fun and confident through the phone.
DRDs have their benefits as well; therefore it is okay for us to use them. If we emphasize on them enough, we have a legitimate excuse to continue on this path to doom. In Everything Bad is Good For You, Johnson mentions on several occasions that we are the ones in control. When we are watching television, playing video games, or using the internet, we are the manipulators not the manipulated. Through DRDs, we are “learning to lead.” Of course this is, to some extent true. We do these things based on our own senses of judgment. And based on Johnson’s argument, “it’s not about tolerating or aestheticizing chaos; it’s about finding order and meaning in the world, and making decisions that help create that order” (62). We are constantly stimulating our brains through DRDs, and making sense of the situation provided by them. According to Johnson, we are the ones that are in control; we decide on what we do on our DRDs, and how much of it.
From my experience, I never sought to play video games, or to watch television in hopes of “finding order and meaning in the world.” I just do them because it’s part of my connection with other people. These distractions act as common grounds for people to network in. However, if we keep believing that video games, television, and the internet yield such great benefits (I’m not saying that they don’t hold any at all), we can continue to be consumed by DRDs, without feeling any guilt. But as it is displayed in Feed, the characters are given the access to instant knowledge, and yet they’re extremely ignorant. Although our education is not as instanteous, we still do not take advantage of DRDs in that aspect. But since we’re not actually taking control, we’re still caught in these daily cycles of logging on to our internet lives. At least now, we can return to our DRDs with an excuse.
Even if we did seek for education through DRDs, the amount of distraction caused by them outweighs the knowledge it brings. “After all, "never have the opportunities for education, learning, political action, and cultural activity been greater," writes Bauerlein, a former director of Research and Analysis at the National Endowment for the Arts. But somehow, he contends, the much-ballyhooed advances of this brave new world have not only failed to materialize -- they've actually made us dumber” (Drutman). Our generation is getting dumber, even though technology is becoming more advance, making them more accessible for education. With that, we actually do not have a grasp of our digital lives. We’re merely puppets that believe we’re making our own movements. But in fact, we’re just continuing this cycle of DRDs, lying to ourselves so we would feel better about the experience.
There is always a tug that draws us back to DRDs. This tug may not be a strong one, as it is not something forces us to return to our digital homes, but we do allow ourselves to give into it. Having a life filled with DRDs is nearly inevitable, given the society and situation that we are in. DRDs are the cores of our academic/work lives, our social lives, and our pleasures. We are surrounded by these essentials that act as walls to imprison us with the DRDs. As a result, we are caught in a cycle where we would always have to interact with DRDs. And for now, this cycle seems inescapable.
Thursday, November 5, 2009
Suggestions [HW #19]
Comment for John's Blog
A few suggestions I would make are:
- you should watch out for diction errors. there were a few errors in your word choice (e.g. "median"-> medium, "obese"->obsess)- these are the ones that stood out to me.
- If you're going to talk about "what is a good and meaningful life? and how does drds play into it?" I think you should incorporate that into our thesis, and then explain what you think a meaningful life is at the beginning. and as you go through your arguments, you can talk about how the two things connect. but it's up to you.
other than that, i think that you're making your point very clear, and you're drawing out some interesting quotes from the texts provided.
Comment for Bao Lin's Blog (in place of Gavin's)
Hey, nice topic. I think that you make a very legitimate argument. It reminds me of the whole: guns don't kill people; people do.
Aside from the clear arguments, and your evidence to back up those arguments, I'd say that you do a very good job in reconnecting it with your thesis. The tie-backs are there within every paragraph/piece of evidence, and it was fairly easy to follow along as I was reading this segment of your paper.
One thing that I would (but perhaps you wouldn't)consider revising is your last paragraph (Argument 1: Evidence 3). You were talking about how Carr blames Google for making us stupid, and then you said it was because of his reading habits. Although, it was his fault in believing in unreliable sources found through Google, you can't really put blame on someone being stupid, through the attempt of reading.
But as Richard said, there are a few spelling and grammar errors, but aside from those and the 3rd paragraph, I think this is moving towards a great paper. It definitely stands out amongst all the essays that states, DRDs=bad. I also read over your outline, and one thing that caught my eye was: "our intelligence is killed by our own hands." I'd to see how you would develop this. The first thing popped up in my head, as an argument, is that we allow ourselves to get distracted by the DRDs. The DRDs, itself, aren't forcing us to use it. So, it is ultimately our fault.
So anyways, good start. I'm going to look forward to the final product.
A few suggestions I would make are:
- you should watch out for diction errors. there were a few errors in your word choice (e.g. "median"-> medium, "obese"->obsess)- these are the ones that stood out to me.
- If you're going to talk about "what is a good and meaningful life? and how does drds play into it?" I think you should incorporate that into our thesis, and then explain what you think a meaningful life is at the beginning. and as you go through your arguments, you can talk about how the two things connect. but it's up to you.
other than that, i think that you're making your point very clear, and you're drawing out some interesting quotes from the texts provided.
Comment for Bao Lin's Blog (in place of Gavin's)
Hey, nice topic. I think that you make a very legitimate argument. It reminds me of the whole: guns don't kill people; people do.
Aside from the clear arguments, and your evidence to back up those arguments, I'd say that you do a very good job in reconnecting it with your thesis. The tie-backs are there within every paragraph/piece of evidence, and it was fairly easy to follow along as I was reading this segment of your paper.
One thing that I would (but perhaps you wouldn't)consider revising is your last paragraph (Argument 1: Evidence 3). You were talking about how Carr blames Google for making us stupid, and then you said it was because of his reading habits. Although, it was his fault in believing in unreliable sources found through Google, you can't really put blame on someone being stupid, through the attempt of reading.
But as Richard said, there are a few spelling and grammar errors, but aside from those and the 3rd paragraph, I think this is moving towards a great paper. It definitely stands out amongst all the essays that states, DRDs=bad. I also read over your outline, and one thing that caught my eye was: "our intelligence is killed by our own hands." I'd to see how you would develop this. The first thing popped up in my head, as an argument, is that we allow ourselves to get distracted by the DRDs. The DRDs, itself, aren't forcing us to use it. So, it is ultimately our fault.
So anyways, good start. I'm going to look forward to the final product.
Rough Draft [HW #18]
Digital technology has, without a doubt, an engulfing effect. Digitalization has taken over many aspects of our lives. The things we see, the things we listen to, the way we interact- they have all been manipulated so that it can be more accessible to us through digital representational devices (DRDs). Anyone would, of course, tell you that they are well aware that these stimulations are not authentic and are distorting our perception of world. There is a consensus about the effect of digitalization; most people would agree with what has been said so far. However, we continue to obsessively use these DRDs, neglecting our realizations about digitalization- as though, our thoughts should not matter when we're submerging ourselves into this world. We are imprisoned by our own way of digitalization. We knowingly continue to live our faux-lives, returning to our internet profiles regardless of what our thoughts and feelings tell us.
“That’s just how it is” (Interviewee). There is a general belief that digitalization is engraved into our lifestyles. We believe that since digitalization has such a lasting role thus far, it is here to stay. We have already come to accept it as a part of life- as a medium that connects us with society and the rest of the world. Without it, we will fail to succeed in society socially and economically, or at least that is what we believe. Even now, as I am writing this essay on my blog, I feel as though my desire to succeed academically is binding me to the computer. Digital technology is now perceived as a necessity, rather than a privilege. In a way, it has become the way to communicate; everything else is marginal. We’ve taken in DRDs as a major part of our lives, because we directly associate communication with DRDs. And we constantly return to DRDs because if we were to forfeit them, we would be forfeiting our way of communication, and our connections with the rest of the world.
There is an expectation that everyone has to act as a reflection of the positive energy that other people send them. And most people try to meet this expectation. Everyone has to be nice, everyone has to be charming, everyone has to be funny, and everyone has “lol” after every dumb statement. If done successfully, the person’s chances of developing a more “intimate” relationship with the other person. But of course, hardly anyone can act this way all the time- unless they’re on the internet. We are, for the most part, well aware that we put on these false identities when we’re chatting away online. “You have no idea who you are, so you're experiment which one is more likeable” (John L). We want to be liked, so we project ourselves in whatever form that will appeal to more people. And when we’re online, our identities are more easily adjustable. However, when we’re in the outside world, such an alteration is not as accessible; in that, we are much more perceivable. If a person allows their internet profiles completely overlap their physical lives, they would be called a “fake” or a “phony,” at least that’s what my observations have told me. We return to DRDs and the internet, because that would never be the issue. Everyone is trying to act nice, and managing their coolness. No one will ever try to blow off anyone’s mask, because they’re so preoccupied in trying to project their own. Your faux-identities are safe, and forever-growing
DRDs have their benefits as well; therefore it is okay for us to use them. If we emphasize on them enough, we have a legitimate excuse to continue on this path to doom. In Everything Bad is Good For You, Johnson mentions on several occasions that we are the ones in control. When we are watching television, playing video games, or using the internet, we are the manipulators not the manipulated. Through DRDs, we are “learning to lead.” Of course this is, to some extent true. We do these things based on our own senses of judgment. And based on Johnson’s argument, “it’s not about tolerating or aestheticizing chaos; it’s about finding order and meaning in the world, and making decisions that help create that order” (62). We are constantly stimulating our brains through DRDs, and making sense of the situation provided by them. From my experience, I never sought to play video games, or to watch television in hopes of “finding order and meaning in the world.” I just do them because it’s part of my connection with other people. These distractions act as common grounds for people to network in. However, if we keep believing that video games, television, and the internet yield such great benefits (I’m not saying that they don’t hold any at all), we can continue to be consumed by DRDs, without feeling any guilt. We can return to our DRDs, because now we have an excuse to.
There is always a tug that draws us back to DRDs. This tug may not be a strong one, as it is not something forces us to return to our digital homes, but we do allow ourselves to give into it.
“That’s just how it is” (Interviewee). There is a general belief that digitalization is engraved into our lifestyles. We believe that since digitalization has such a lasting role thus far, it is here to stay. We have already come to accept it as a part of life- as a medium that connects us with society and the rest of the world. Without it, we will fail to succeed in society socially and economically, or at least that is what we believe. Even now, as I am writing this essay on my blog, I feel as though my desire to succeed academically is binding me to the computer. Digital technology is now perceived as a necessity, rather than a privilege. In a way, it has become the way to communicate; everything else is marginal. We’ve taken in DRDs as a major part of our lives, because we directly associate communication with DRDs. And we constantly return to DRDs because if we were to forfeit them, we would be forfeiting our way of communication, and our connections with the rest of the world.
There is an expectation that everyone has to act as a reflection of the positive energy that other people send them. And most people try to meet this expectation. Everyone has to be nice, everyone has to be charming, everyone has to be funny, and everyone has “lol” after every dumb statement. If done successfully, the person’s chances of developing a more “intimate” relationship with the other person. But of course, hardly anyone can act this way all the time- unless they’re on the internet. We are, for the most part, well aware that we put on these false identities when we’re chatting away online. “You have no idea who you are, so you're experiment which one is more likeable” (John L). We want to be liked, so we project ourselves in whatever form that will appeal to more people. And when we’re online, our identities are more easily adjustable. However, when we’re in the outside world, such an alteration is not as accessible; in that, we are much more perceivable. If a person allows their internet profiles completely overlap their physical lives, they would be called a “fake” or a “phony,” at least that’s what my observations have told me. We return to DRDs and the internet, because that would never be the issue. Everyone is trying to act nice, and managing their coolness. No one will ever try to blow off anyone’s mask, because they’re so preoccupied in trying to project their own. Your faux-identities are safe, and forever-growing
DRDs have their benefits as well; therefore it is okay for us to use them. If we emphasize on them enough, we have a legitimate excuse to continue on this path to doom. In Everything Bad is Good For You, Johnson mentions on several occasions that we are the ones in control. When we are watching television, playing video games, or using the internet, we are the manipulators not the manipulated. Through DRDs, we are “learning to lead.” Of course this is, to some extent true. We do these things based on our own senses of judgment. And based on Johnson’s argument, “it’s not about tolerating or aestheticizing chaos; it’s about finding order and meaning in the world, and making decisions that help create that order” (62). We are constantly stimulating our brains through DRDs, and making sense of the situation provided by them. From my experience, I never sought to play video games, or to watch television in hopes of “finding order and meaning in the world.” I just do them because it’s part of my connection with other people. These distractions act as common grounds for people to network in. However, if we keep believing that video games, television, and the internet yield such great benefits (I’m not saying that they don’t hold any at all), we can continue to be consumed by DRDs, without feeling any guilt. We can return to our DRDs, because now we have an excuse to.
There is always a tug that draws us back to DRDs. This tug may not be a strong one, as it is not something forces us to return to our digital homes, but we do allow ourselves to give into it.
Wednesday, November 4, 2009
Freestylin' [HW #17]
Comment for John's Blog
I agree with J0hn Galt. Your arguments are very clear. I think that from argument 1 to argument 3, you build up on the whole "easier to manipulate"- like, arguments 1 and 2 explain why we would be vulnerable to manipulation. And for the third argument, I might emphasize more on us eating what society feeds us.
I might also trim down on the evidence on the first argument. When you begin to make it into paragraph form, you might be overwhelmed, trying to fit all those pieces of evidence.
It was also good how you provided the alt. pov and then an extra argument after that to override it. I might consider adding that extra argument after my alt. pov.
Comment for Gavin's Blog
"we reinvent our personalities to account for the growing faceless factor; our masks in real life get removed and replaced with shiner, different ones online."- pretty diesel, triad brother.
I think you have a good idea about what you're gonna write about- like exact statements and highlights.
I particularly like your argument 2 about depersonalizaton through re-personalization. I want to see how this is going to develop.
I know you have more evidence in mind, but it might be helpful to write it out and organize it in your outline, rather than freestyling as you're writing your essay. But then again, you could probably still pull that off.
I would also consider having an alternative pov and arguing against it.
Peace.
I agree with J0hn Galt. Your arguments are very clear. I think that from argument 1 to argument 3, you build up on the whole "easier to manipulate"- like, arguments 1 and 2 explain why we would be vulnerable to manipulation. And for the third argument, I might emphasize more on us eating what society feeds us.
I might also trim down on the evidence on the first argument. When you begin to make it into paragraph form, you might be overwhelmed, trying to fit all those pieces of evidence.
It was also good how you provided the alt. pov and then an extra argument after that to override it. I might consider adding that extra argument after my alt. pov.
Comment for Gavin's Blog
"we reinvent our personalities to account for the growing faceless factor; our masks in real life get removed and replaced with shiner, different ones online."- pretty diesel, triad brother.
I think you have a good idea about what you're gonna write about- like exact statements and highlights.
I particularly like your argument 2 about depersonalizaton through re-personalization. I want to see how this is going to develop.
I know you have more evidence in mind, but it might be helpful to write it out and organize it in your outline, rather than freestyling as you're writing your essay. But then again, you could probably still pull that off.
I would also consider having an alternative pov and arguing against it.
Peace.
Sunday, November 1, 2009
Outline (comments pl0x) [HW #16]
Introduction: It can agreed that digitalization has in fact taken over many aspects of our lives. The things we see, the things we listen to, the way we interact- they've all been manipulated so that it can be more accessible to us through digital representational devices (DRDs). Anyone would, of course, tell you that they are well aware that these stimulations are not authentic and are distorting our perception of world. However, we continue to obsessively use these DRDs, neglecting our realizations about digitalization- as though, our thoughts should not matter when we're submerging ourselves into this world. We are imprisoned by our own way of digitalization. We knowingly continue to live our faux-lives, returning to our internet profiles regardless of what our thoughts and feelings tell us.
Argument #1: It's our way of life. We feel as though the internet is a necessity to survive in society. It has become the standard way of communication. We've already accepted DRDs as a part of our lives, therefore we consistently return to it. "That's just how it is" (Interview Blog). Evidence: Other blogs ("Just because he found something good about the internet, like learning how to problem solve computer errors through logic, doesn't rule out the sad fact that the internet has become the default playground of our society.", Feed (the tension of when the characters speak using physical movements), Wall-E (going along the set-track while talking to a screen, representing his friend floating next to him).
Argument #2: The sanctuary is behind the glowing screen. We strive to be in a place that is both comfortable and empowering- and what better place is there than the internet? We can control our identities, manipulate other's perceptions, pick out what we see and hear, be cool. Evidence: Everything Bad is Good For You, Interview Blog (Pinkberry- being funnier), Other Blogs
Argument #3/Alt. POV: We focus primarily on the benefits of the internet: socializing/reconnecting with friends researching. By looking at what DRDs can do for us, we try and neglect what it can do to us. We see the DRDs, especially the internet, as an opportunity to grow- but the thing is that we never take hold of those opportunities. Evidence: Everything Bad is Good For You (we're given even more excuses to play video games, watch television, and use the internet), LA Times (increase in sources of education does not correlate with our intelligence), Feed (the characters are dumb, even though information is so accessible)
Conclusion: There is always a tug that draws us back to DRDs. This tug may not be a strong one, as it is not something forces us to return to our digital homes, but we do allow ourselves to give into it.
Argument #1: It's our way of life. We feel as though the internet is a necessity to survive in society. It has become the standard way of communication. We've already accepted DRDs as a part of our lives, therefore we consistently return to it. "That's just how it is" (Interview Blog). Evidence: Other blogs ("Just because he found something good about the internet, like learning how to problem solve computer errors through logic, doesn't rule out the sad fact that the internet has become the default playground of our society.", Feed (the tension of when the characters speak using physical movements), Wall-E (going along the set-track while talking to a screen, representing his friend floating next to him).
Argument #2: The sanctuary is behind the glowing screen. We strive to be in a place that is both comfortable and empowering- and what better place is there than the internet? We can control our identities, manipulate other's perceptions, pick out what we see and hear, be cool. Evidence: Everything Bad is Good For You, Interview Blog (Pinkberry- being funnier), Other Blogs
Argument #3/Alt. POV: We focus primarily on the benefits of the internet: socializing/reconnecting with friends researching. By looking at what DRDs can do for us, we try and neglect what it can do to us. We see the DRDs, especially the internet, as an opportunity to grow- but the thing is that we never take hold of those opportunities. Evidence: Everything Bad is Good For You (we're given even more excuses to play video games, watch television, and use the internet), LA Times (increase in sources of education does not correlate with our intelligence), Feed (the characters are dumb, even though information is so accessible)
Conclusion: There is always a tug that draws us back to DRDs. This tug may not be a strong one, as it is not something forces us to return to our digital homes, but we do allow ourselves to give into it.
Tuesday, October 27, 2009
Letter for You [HW #15- Gavin]
Let's do this. No trash talking about the commenting system this round.
As always, your writing portrays great ideas in such an articulate way (e.g."I found myself with less distraction in the form of music, which normally lifts me away from my surrounding and deeper into myself by shutting off the outside and the other people around me"). Although our class has the same general ideas about digitalization, it's just so much more intriguing to read your blogs. It's a lot more engaging.
With that being said, it seems to me that your main focus is digitalization being a source of distractions and alienation. And it's not something that we're not aware of, but like you said, we don't act on it. As a result, "society is doomed for a collapse, that's inevitable." I agree that this contributes greatly to our collapse. We're just so blinded by having fun, using our DRDs and focusing on the next step to take to stay fresh, that we don't see anything on the bigger picture. We don't see our lifestyles are messed up, or how we really have no control of anything, not even the people that we choose to be. One big idea that sums this up would be "you need to be distracted in order to survive." If we're not distracted, we'd be left with the reality of life, which I don't think many of us can handle.
The results of your self-experiment would agree with your argument. By starving yourself of digitalization, you had more time to think when you were on the bus and became more aware of the people around you, rather than shutting them off. You were able to make something (skateboard) meaningful by having some sort of contribution to its production. And you "felt free." Even so, I'm assuming you didn't/wouldn't completely cut yourself away from the digital world. We always tell ourselves that DRDs distract us, and are bad for us, but even thought we known that on the days of our "digital ramadan" we are more perceptive and freer, we always, for some reason, go back to digitalization. Remember "Never Let Me Go"? That's probably another allegory too. We're devoting our lives to become tools for the "real" people- the ones that matter (let's save this for another day; this is about digitalization). So anyways, we're all kind of like the students from Hailsham. Even after they left the school, they continued to think about it and wished they were back there. And even more so, hardly anyone aside from Tommy and Kathy saw this system as messed up, because they were all caught up in enjoying their time, and fulfilling their roles. And even with Tommy and Kathy as the exceptions, nothing was done to change it. I guess here's the "D" or the "E" portion of the ABCDEF commenting- it could be used to develop your ideas, but it's also a question that was triggered through reading your blog, hmmm I'm not sure. How much of our desire to go back to digitalization/Hailsham derives from holding on to something familiar to us? And how much of it is out of fear for change?
Another question I would like to prompt in response to "People are no longer encouraged about doing things themselves" is: Is this out of laziness, or out of being efficient? I think it's both, but mostly laziness. Things (e.g. downloads) also just seem more fun and agonizing when you're just watching it go.
A-B-C-D-E-F...I think I did all of them. Anyways, it was my pleasure reading your post. Let's just make those "drafts" into real deals. I'll be interested in seeing how you expand on the ideas that you already wrote about. Oh, and you might want to read or re-read John's HW 14, particularly the last one or two paragraphs. It connects with the whole distraction idea. For now, chao outside Gutha Mucka.
As always, your writing portrays great ideas in such an articulate way (e.g."I found myself with less distraction in the form of music, which normally lifts me away from my surrounding and deeper into myself by shutting off the outside and the other people around me"). Although our class has the same general ideas about digitalization, it's just so much more intriguing to read your blogs. It's a lot more engaging.
With that being said, it seems to me that your main focus is digitalization being a source of distractions and alienation. And it's not something that we're not aware of, but like you said, we don't act on it. As a result, "society is doomed for a collapse, that's inevitable." I agree that this contributes greatly to our collapse. We're just so blinded by having fun, using our DRDs and focusing on the next step to take to stay fresh, that we don't see anything on the bigger picture. We don't see our lifestyles are messed up, or how we really have no control of anything, not even the people that we choose to be. One big idea that sums this up would be "you need to be distracted in order to survive." If we're not distracted, we'd be left with the reality of life, which I don't think many of us can handle.
The results of your self-experiment would agree with your argument. By starving yourself of digitalization, you had more time to think when you were on the bus and became more aware of the people around you, rather than shutting them off. You were able to make something (skateboard) meaningful by having some sort of contribution to its production. And you "felt free." Even so, I'm assuming you didn't/wouldn't completely cut yourself away from the digital world. We always tell ourselves that DRDs distract us, and are bad for us, but even thought we known that on the days of our "digital ramadan" we are more perceptive and freer, we always, for some reason, go back to digitalization. Remember "Never Let Me Go"? That's probably another allegory too. We're devoting our lives to become tools for the "real" people- the ones that matter (let's save this for another day; this is about digitalization). So anyways, we're all kind of like the students from Hailsham. Even after they left the school, they continued to think about it and wished they were back there. And even more so, hardly anyone aside from Tommy and Kathy saw this system as messed up, because they were all caught up in enjoying their time, and fulfilling their roles. And even with Tommy and Kathy as the exceptions, nothing was done to change it. I guess here's the "D" or the "E" portion of the ABCDEF commenting- it could be used to develop your ideas, but it's also a question that was triggered through reading your blog, hmmm I'm not sure. How much of our desire to go back to digitalization/Hailsham derives from holding on to something familiar to us? And how much of it is out of fear for change?
Another question I would like to prompt in response to "People are no longer encouraged about doing things themselves" is: Is this out of laziness, or out of being efficient? I think it's both, but mostly laziness. Things (e.g. downloads) also just seem more fun and agonizing when you're just watching it go.
A-B-C-D-E-F...I think I did all of them. Anyways, it was my pleasure reading your post. Let's just make those "drafts" into real deals. I'll be interested in seeing how you expand on the ideas that you already wrote about. Oh, and you might want to read or re-read John's HW 14, particularly the last one or two paragraphs. It connects with the whole distraction idea. For now, chao outside Gutha Mucka.
Letter for You [HW #15- John]
Alright let me try to do in paragraph form and still hit all the ABCDEFs. Hey John, it seems like you never fail to make your blogs a coalesce of ideas from the text, ideas from the class, and specific examples from your life (e.g. skinny jeans in school, Swift vs. West, etc). It's always good to read your blogs because, although some of the observations are common, hardly anyone tries to create the ties between them. Creating these connections definitely relect on your desire to make sense of the situation we're in.
Between your blogs: Feed A, Feed B and HW 14- New Text, you make your opinion very clear. I'd say the best quote that sums up your view on this whole digitalization thing would be: "Digitalized representations fuck up your brains so you can function in a fucked up society." It's like we let DRDs control the way we think, the way we feel and the way we act so that we can play this little game filled with other branded, homogeneous people. We're being conditioned so our identities can correspond with the rest of our Feed world.
I found it interesting that you described online chattin as "kind of sounds like you're interacting with yourself." from what I can tell, you think that everyone puts on these fake identities that mostly revolve around being funny and charming. Andy by everyone doing this, we're all essentially interacting with ourselves. The way that I see this is that we're all looking for an outside source to tell us what we want to hear. And in order for the people to fulfill their charming role, the other person would have to do just that. You said that you tend to act funnier when you're talking online. I think that most people are aware that they act differently through AIM or Facebook or whatever. But how okay are we about being this phony? And why is that we are who we want to be when we're online, but we hardly become who we want to be when we're in the outside world?
Oh and also, how different are we from the people in our lives? Even without the keyboard, we associate ourselves with people that have similar experiences and interests. Like in our class Andy's class with Mr. Tsui, there were a handful of people that said/imploed that love is when two people share similar personalities and are "compatible" with each othe. We just tend to drift towards the people who are similar to us- the people within the same conformity. It always "kind of sounds like you're interacting with yourself" whether or not the keyboard medium is present.
One thing that I'd like to point out is your evaluation of M.T's choice of sending his message through a book. I'm sure you have thought about it, but I think that just saying "don't fix something if it's not broken" is dangerous. It may be true that portraying this in the form of a book is the better option, it's also important to see why the other options are bad. So maybe he chose to write a book, because the other sources would have been taken as seriously (e.g. if Feed was a movie, people would watch it for the plot, rather than analyzing for insights). And also "don't fix something if it's not broken"- isn't this the mentailty that is keeping us trapped in this corrupt way of living?
Time to continue "the viscious cycle" (Story of Stuff reference, hehe) of post blog, comment on blog, post blog, comment on blog... in Gavin's territory. Chao outside, Jutha Lucka.
Between your blogs: Feed A, Feed B and HW 14- New Text, you make your opinion very clear. I'd say the best quote that sums up your view on this whole digitalization thing would be: "Digitalized representations fuck up your brains so you can function in a fucked up society." It's like we let DRDs control the way we think, the way we feel and the way we act so that we can play this little game filled with other branded, homogeneous people. We're being conditioned so our identities can correspond with the rest of our Feed world.
I found it interesting that you described online chattin as "kind of sounds like you're interacting with yourself." from what I can tell, you think that everyone puts on these fake identities that mostly revolve around being funny and charming. Andy by everyone doing this, we're all essentially interacting with ourselves. The way that I see this is that we're all looking for an outside source to tell us what we want to hear. And in order for the people to fulfill their charming role, the other person would have to do just that. You said that you tend to act funnier when you're talking online. I think that most people are aware that they act differently through AIM or Facebook or whatever. But how okay are we about being this phony? And why is that we are who we want to be when we're online, but we hardly become who we want to be when we're in the outside world?
Oh and also, how different are we from the people in our lives? Even without the keyboard, we associate ourselves with people that have similar experiences and interests. Like in our class Andy's class with Mr. Tsui, there were a handful of people that said/imploed that love is when two people share similar personalities and are "compatible" with each othe. We just tend to drift towards the people who are similar to us- the people within the same conformity. It always "kind of sounds like you're interacting with yourself" whether or not the keyboard medium is present.
One thing that I'd like to point out is your evaluation of M.T's choice of sending his message through a book. I'm sure you have thought about it, but I think that just saying "don't fix something if it's not broken" is dangerous. It may be true that portraying this in the form of a book is the better option, it's also important to see why the other options are bad. So maybe he chose to write a book, because the other sources would have been taken as seriously (e.g. if Feed was a movie, people would watch it for the plot, rather than analyzing for insights). And also "don't fix something if it's not broken"- isn't this the mentailty that is keeping us trapped in this corrupt way of living?
Time to continue "the viscious cycle" (Story of Stuff reference, hehe) of post blog, comment on blog, post blog, comment on blog... in Gavin's territory. Chao outside, Jutha Lucka.
The Anti-Thesis [HW #14]
Steven Johnson's perspective is as the title states "Everything Bad is Good For You." In this particular excerpt, Johnson focuses on the good aspects of video games, television, and the internet. Contrary to the popular claims that digital technology is bad for us, Johnson argues that these things actually help us, mostly in developing equanimity. He says that by associating ourselves with DRDs, we are learning new ways to cope with quagmires. Rather than saying video games, television, and the internet distorts the way we perceive and interact with the world, Johnson says that it is representational of the lives that we live. It provides an opportunity to have a mock-trial in our isolated rooms, where errors are acceptable, before going into the real world where finesse is an absolute.
There has been, for the most part, a contrast between reading books and playing video games. It's either you do one or the other (like the vanilla or chocolate example). However, Johnson tries to synthesize both of these activities and say that they're both beneficial. For the sake of his book, Johnson sides with the teenagers, saying that video games should not be so belittled, and even brings arguments other than "cause they're fun." Some of Johnson's arguments is that video games help all the players develop "visual intelligence and manual dexterity" and tolerance for chaos . All of which, I would agree, are important. Video games are similar to gyms. Both allows us to develop and hone certain skills. But of course, there are also alternatives- some that are actually more natural and direct, and possibly more efficient. Although Johnson makes many valid points, it can easily be argued by saying that the same set of skills that you get from playing video games, can be attained through the world that physically surrounds us, as opposed to the world that mentally surrounds us.
"The book readers of the younger generation are learning to 'follow the plot' rather than learning to lead" - In an attempt to set video games at a higher standard, Johnson says that readers are not as empowered as video gamers. They are not in control of what stimulates their mind and senses. They simply read along the linear lines of coded symbols. I agree with critique about reading, and would say that it's something that people should be aware of. However, I wouldn't use that as an argument as to why video games are good for you. That is because video games are just as arbitrary. The player might be able to control which frame they look at at any given time, but there are only so many possibilities before the experience become repetitive. Both books and video games are limited by the creators. And both are obstacles that you simply have to get good at overcoming. I also think that Johnson makes a good point about which came first: books or video games. People tend to value the things that are original. It's just that we construct the fundamentals of our society based on what the original founders valued. So if video games came first, then the founders would value video games, and that would be what we value as well. And what the things we value are absolute.
In a similar manner, television also creates hypothetical situations where "finding order and meaning in the world, making decisions that help create that order" is possible. Johnson is saying that by us watching television, we are putting our sense of judgment to use. He is saying that we watch television in order stimulate our minds- instead of seeking for a distraction, we are are actually seeking for a distraction that requires logic. I think that, to some degree, this is true. There probably is some thinking involved in us staring at a rectangular box. Through the rules and the circumstance provided, we create an appropriate solution and prediction about the show. Again, just like video games, we're trying to logically understand what is "happening" right in front of us. Even so, I'm not too sure if we turn on the television in hopes of exercising our minds so that we can better solve the situations that we are in. The way that I saw this segment of the excerpt was that it was Johnson's chance to validate those many hours he spend on watching those various shows, which he used as examples. I think that Johnson momentarily lost track of the point he tries to make, because he said that viewers are able to follow the plot and make sense of it. But in the previous chapter, he bashes on how following the plot doesn't allow for control. I do, however, agree that television is effective in spreading the current events. Looking up the news on the computer, or reading the newspaper is just far too inconvenient.
The internet section was slightly more cliche than the other two sections. He says that the internet is a new way of connecting with people around the world. It gives us the ability to project our lives and broadcast it with everyone who bothers to read it. Although this may be true, it isn't worth considering because it's nothing that everyone hasn't thought of. Johnson also say that the internet is very interactive and "participatory." It is something that we are focused and engaged in doing. The internet gives us the incentive to write diaries and novels, both of which comes from "our" thoughts. "The next generation is carrying that logic to a new extreme: the screen is not just something you manipulate, but something you project your identity onto, a place to work through the story of your life as it unfolds"- Again, this is not something that hasn't been said in class, but it is definitely something to be aware of, and is worded more nicely. I would only like to add that, even though we draw elements from our lives and incorporate into our internet profiles, it's also true in reverse. Both sides of our lives define each other.
This book was written with the objective to make the readers see the situation at different angle, whereas Feed was written as an extreme allegory that portrayed an amplified version of our lives. With that sad, there are, of course, differences between the two book. Johnson says that in both our physical world and in our video games, we have to learn the rules of the environment in order to advance to the next level. We have to understand our worlds, before we can make progress in them, and DRDs help us to do that. However, in Feed, all the Titus' friends aren't aware of the situation they're in, but they're constantly being consumed by DRDs. If anything, the Feed is actually distracting them from understanding the world. "But when I woke up, I didn't remember that for weeks. What I remembered was just the games, which, once I was awake, I couldn't find, and the elf gloves, and the bow, and the lizard that was all mine" (93). Given those little amounts of opportunities for something meaningful, like Titus' dream, the characters in Feed don't take a firm grasp on it. Instead, they lose it through continuing their lives of distraction, which in the end, gave them nothing- "I couldn't find, and the elf gloves, and the bow, and the lizard that was all mine." Another contradiction between the two books would be Johnson's claim about us creating our own worlds through DRDs. "Concoct entire worlds in your head, rather than simply ingest a series of prepackaged images." Again, the people in Feed aren't exactly following this path. They are not creating any worlds of their own. Rather, they are living in a world that the corporations created. They would not appear to have any freedoms, in terms of what they think, as a result, they don't have control of what they do either. Everything in their lives, and ours are "prepackaged images."
Johnson brought up the idea of video games being delayed gratification. Things are more valuable or meaningful when you work towards it over a period of time. Reading this reminded me of Violet's shopping habits. For those who don't remember, or didn't read, she would have a routine that retards her using/wearing her purchase. Being that video games are delayed gratification, I saw Violet's shopping habit as a means to stay in the middle between digital and non-digital. While other people in Feed play video games as their source of delayed gratification, Violet's method of shopping is her substitute. However, the difference would be that the other people would be constantly focused on the game and anticipating when they reach a certain mark. Whereas, most of Violet's waiting occurs within her mind and emotions. Violet might not be completely ingested by DRDs, but she does have her way of stimulating similar emotions.
"I think we need to shoot the bad guy."
Who?
There has been, for the most part, a contrast between reading books and playing video games. It's either you do one or the other (like the vanilla or chocolate example). However, Johnson tries to synthesize both of these activities and say that they're both beneficial. For the sake of his book, Johnson sides with the teenagers, saying that video games should not be so belittled, and even brings arguments other than "cause they're fun." Some of Johnson's arguments is that video games help all the players develop "visual intelligence and manual dexterity" and tolerance for chaos . All of which, I would agree, are important. Video games are similar to gyms. Both allows us to develop and hone certain skills. But of course, there are also alternatives- some that are actually more natural and direct, and possibly more efficient. Although Johnson makes many valid points, it can easily be argued by saying that the same set of skills that you get from playing video games, can be attained through the world that physically surrounds us, as opposed to the world that mentally surrounds us.
"The book readers of the younger generation are learning to 'follow the plot' rather than learning to lead" - In an attempt to set video games at a higher standard, Johnson says that readers are not as empowered as video gamers. They are not in control of what stimulates their mind and senses. They simply read along the linear lines of coded symbols. I agree with critique about reading, and would say that it's something that people should be aware of. However, I wouldn't use that as an argument as to why video games are good for you. That is because video games are just as arbitrary. The player might be able to control which frame they look at at any given time, but there are only so many possibilities before the experience become repetitive. Both books and video games are limited by the creators. And both are obstacles that you simply have to get good at overcoming. I also think that Johnson makes a good point about which came first: books or video games. People tend to value the things that are original. It's just that we construct the fundamentals of our society based on what the original founders valued. So if video games came first, then the founders would value video games, and that would be what we value as well. And what the things we value are absolute.
In a similar manner, television also creates hypothetical situations where "finding order and meaning in the world, making decisions that help create that order" is possible. Johnson is saying that by us watching television, we are putting our sense of judgment to use. He is saying that we watch television in order stimulate our minds- instead of seeking for a distraction, we are are actually seeking for a distraction that requires logic. I think that, to some degree, this is true. There probably is some thinking involved in us staring at a rectangular box. Through the rules and the circumstance provided, we create an appropriate solution and prediction about the show. Again, just like video games, we're trying to logically understand what is "happening" right in front of us. Even so, I'm not too sure if we turn on the television in hopes of exercising our minds so that we can better solve the situations that we are in. The way that I saw this segment of the excerpt was that it was Johnson's chance to validate those many hours he spend on watching those various shows, which he used as examples. I think that Johnson momentarily lost track of the point he tries to make, because he said that viewers are able to follow the plot and make sense of it. But in the previous chapter, he bashes on how following the plot doesn't allow for control. I do, however, agree that television is effective in spreading the current events. Looking up the news on the computer, or reading the newspaper is just far too inconvenient.
The internet section was slightly more cliche than the other two sections. He says that the internet is a new way of connecting with people around the world. It gives us the ability to project our lives and broadcast it with everyone who bothers to read it. Although this may be true, it isn't worth considering because it's nothing that everyone hasn't thought of. Johnson also say that the internet is very interactive and "participatory." It is something that we are focused and engaged in doing. The internet gives us the incentive to write diaries and novels, both of which comes from "our" thoughts. "The next generation is carrying that logic to a new extreme: the screen is not just something you manipulate, but something you project your identity onto, a place to work through the story of your life as it unfolds"- Again, this is not something that hasn't been said in class, but it is definitely something to be aware of, and is worded more nicely. I would only like to add that, even though we draw elements from our lives and incorporate into our internet profiles, it's also true in reverse. Both sides of our lives define each other.
This book was written with the objective to make the readers see the situation at different angle, whereas Feed was written as an extreme allegory that portrayed an amplified version of our lives. With that sad, there are, of course, differences between the two book. Johnson says that in both our physical world and in our video games, we have to learn the rules of the environment in order to advance to the next level. We have to understand our worlds, before we can make progress in them, and DRDs help us to do that. However, in Feed, all the Titus' friends aren't aware of the situation they're in, but they're constantly being consumed by DRDs. If anything, the Feed is actually distracting them from understanding the world. "But when I woke up, I didn't remember that for weeks. What I remembered was just the games, which, once I was awake, I couldn't find, and the elf gloves, and the bow, and the lizard that was all mine" (93). Given those little amounts of opportunities for something meaningful, like Titus' dream, the characters in Feed don't take a firm grasp on it. Instead, they lose it through continuing their lives of distraction, which in the end, gave them nothing- "I couldn't find, and the elf gloves, and the bow, and the lizard that was all mine." Another contradiction between the two books would be Johnson's claim about us creating our own worlds through DRDs. "Concoct entire worlds in your head, rather than simply ingest a series of prepackaged images." Again, the people in Feed aren't exactly following this path. They are not creating any worlds of their own. Rather, they are living in a world that the corporations created. They would not appear to have any freedoms, in terms of what they think, as a result, they don't have control of what they do either. Everything in their lives, and ours are "prepackaged images."
Johnson brought up the idea of video games being delayed gratification. Things are more valuable or meaningful when you work towards it over a period of time. Reading this reminded me of Violet's shopping habits. For those who don't remember, or didn't read, she would have a routine that retards her using/wearing her purchase. Being that video games are delayed gratification, I saw Violet's shopping habit as a means to stay in the middle between digital and non-digital. While other people in Feed play video games as their source of delayed gratification, Violet's method of shopping is her substitute. However, the difference would be that the other people would be constantly focused on the game and anticipating when they reach a certain mark. Whereas, most of Violet's waiting occurs within her mind and emotions. Violet might not be completely ingested by DRDs, but she does have her way of stimulating similar emotions.
"I think we need to shoot the bad guy."
Who?
Monday, October 26, 2009
The Anti-Thesis [HW #14 Draft]
Steven Johnson's perspective is as the title states "Everything Bad is Good For You." In this particular excerpt, Johnson focuses on the good aspects of video games, television, and the internet. Contrary to the popular claims that digital technology is bad for us, Johnson argues that these things actually help us, mostly in developing equanimity. He says that by associating ourselves with DRDs, we are learning new ways to cope with quagmires. Rather than saying video games, television, and the internet distorts the way we perceive and interact with the world, Johnson says that it is representational of the lives that we live. It provides an opportunity to have a mock-trial in our isolated rooms, where errors are acceptable, before going into the real world where finesse is an absolute.
There has been, for the most part, a contrast between reading books and playing video games. It's either you do one or the other (like the vanilla or chocolate example). However, Johnson tries to synthesize both of these activities and say that they're both beneficial. For the sake of his book, Johnson sides with the teenagers, saying that video games should not be so belittled, and even brings arguments other than "cause they're fun." Some of Johnson's arguments is that video games help all the players develop "visual intelligence and manual dexterity" and tolerance for chaos . All of which, I would agree, are important. Video games are similar to gyms. Both allows us to develop and hone certain skills. But of course, there are also alternatives- some that are actually more natural and direct, and possibly more efficient. Although Johnson makes many valid points, it can easily be argued by saying that the same set of skills that you get from playing video games, can be attained through the world that physically surrounds us, as opposed to the world that mentally surrounds us.
"The book readers of the younger generation are learning to 'follow the plot' rather than learning to lead" - In an attempt to set video games at a higher standard, Johnson says that readers are not as empowered as video gamers. They are not in control of what stimulates their mind and senses. They simply read along the linear lines of coded symbols. I agree with critique about reading, and would say that it's something that people should be aware of. However, I wouldn't use that as an argument as to why video games are good for you. That is because video games are just as arbitrary. The player might be able to control which frame they look at at any given time, but there are only so many possibilities before the experience become repetitive. Both books and video games are limited by the creators. And both are obstacles that you simply have to get good at overcoming.
In a similar manner, television also creates hypothetical situations where "finding order and meaning in the world, making decisions that help create that order" is possible. Johnson is saying that by us watching television, we are putting our sense of judgment to use. He is saying that we watch television in order stimulate our minds- instead of seeking for a distraction, we are are actually seeking for a distraction that requires logic. I think that, to some degree, this is true. There probably is some thinking involved in us staring at a rectangular box. Through the rules and the circumstance provided, we create an appropriate solution and prediction about the show. Again, just like video games, we're trying to logically understand what is "happening" right in front of us. Even so, I'm not too sure if we turn on the television in hopes of exercising our minds so that we can better solve the situations that we are in. The way that I saw this segment of the excerpt was that it was Johnson's chance to validate those many hours he spend on watching those various shows, which he used as examples. I think that Johnson momentarily lost track of the point he tries to make, because he said that viewers are able to follow the plot and make sense of it. But in the previous chapter, he bashes on how following the plot doesn't allow for control. I do, however, agree that television is effective in spreading the current events. Looking up the news on the computer, or reading the newspaper is just far too inconvenient.
The internet section was slightly more cliche than the other two sections. He says that the internet is a new way of connecting with people around the world. It gives us the ability to project our lives and broadcast it with everyone who bothers to read it. Although this may be true, it isn't worth considering because it's nothing that everyone hasn't thought of. Johnson also say that the internet is very interactive and "participatory." It is something that we are focused and engaged in doing. The internet gives us the incentive to write diaries and novels, both of which comes from "our" thoughts. "The next generation is carrying that logic to a new extreme: the screen is not just something you manipulate, but something you project your identity onto, a place to work through the story of your life as it unfolds"- Again, this is not something that hasn't been said in class, but it is definitely something to be aware of, and is worded more nicely. I would only like to add that, even though we draw elements from our lives and incorporate into our internet profiles, it's also true in reverse. Both sides of our lives define each other.
There has been, for the most part, a contrast between reading books and playing video games. It's either you do one or the other (like the vanilla or chocolate example). However, Johnson tries to synthesize both of these activities and say that they're both beneficial. For the sake of his book, Johnson sides with the teenagers, saying that video games should not be so belittled, and even brings arguments other than "cause they're fun." Some of Johnson's arguments is that video games help all the players develop "visual intelligence and manual dexterity" and tolerance for chaos . All of which, I would agree, are important. Video games are similar to gyms. Both allows us to develop and hone certain skills. But of course, there are also alternatives- some that are actually more natural and direct, and possibly more efficient. Although Johnson makes many valid points, it can easily be argued by saying that the same set of skills that you get from playing video games, can be attained through the world that physically surrounds us, as opposed to the world that mentally surrounds us.
"The book readers of the younger generation are learning to 'follow the plot' rather than learning to lead" - In an attempt to set video games at a higher standard, Johnson says that readers are not as empowered as video gamers. They are not in control of what stimulates their mind and senses. They simply read along the linear lines of coded symbols. I agree with critique about reading, and would say that it's something that people should be aware of. However, I wouldn't use that as an argument as to why video games are good for you. That is because video games are just as arbitrary. The player might be able to control which frame they look at at any given time, but there are only so many possibilities before the experience become repetitive. Both books and video games are limited by the creators. And both are obstacles that you simply have to get good at overcoming.
In a similar manner, television also creates hypothetical situations where "finding order and meaning in the world, making decisions that help create that order" is possible. Johnson is saying that by us watching television, we are putting our sense of judgment to use. He is saying that we watch television in order stimulate our minds- instead of seeking for a distraction, we are are actually seeking for a distraction that requires logic. I think that, to some degree, this is true. There probably is some thinking involved in us staring at a rectangular box. Through the rules and the circumstance provided, we create an appropriate solution and prediction about the show. Again, just like video games, we're trying to logically understand what is "happening" right in front of us. Even so, I'm not too sure if we turn on the television in hopes of exercising our minds so that we can better solve the situations that we are in. The way that I saw this segment of the excerpt was that it was Johnson's chance to validate those many hours he spend on watching those various shows, which he used as examples. I think that Johnson momentarily lost track of the point he tries to make, because he said that viewers are able to follow the plot and make sense of it. But in the previous chapter, he bashes on how following the plot doesn't allow for control. I do, however, agree that television is effective in spreading the current events. Looking up the news on the computer, or reading the newspaper is just far too inconvenient.
The internet section was slightly more cliche than the other two sections. He says that the internet is a new way of connecting with people around the world. It gives us the ability to project our lives and broadcast it with everyone who bothers to read it. Although this may be true, it isn't worth considering because it's nothing that everyone hasn't thought of. Johnson also say that the internet is very interactive and "participatory." It is something that we are focused and engaged in doing. The internet gives us the incentive to write diaries and novels, both of which comes from "our" thoughts. "The next generation is carrying that logic to a new extreme: the screen is not just something you manipulate, but something you project your identity onto, a place to work through the story of your life as it unfolds"- Again, this is not something that hasn't been said in class, but it is definitely something to be aware of, and is worded more nicely. I would only like to add that, even though we draw elements from our lives and incorporate into our internet profiles, it's also true in reverse. Both sides of our lives define each other.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)