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.
Tuesday, October 27, 2009
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.
Tuesday, October 20, 2009
Feed B [HW #13- Revised]
Feed was artistically successful, only to all those resist the feed. Only those who (remotely) control their mental activities- not us, or allow/are forced to be guided by the (remotely) "enlightened"- us, would see that this is a reflection of our lives. For all the others- the people who read this book as it is, looking for the traditional plot, this book is just any ordinary collection of papers with the same tiny symbols, mixed and matched in different combination that tells the reader random stuff from a random outside source. The book is the Feed.
Being that I am one with guidance and thus able to perceive this as a piece of art, I suspected that M.T. chose to set this book in the future (yeah. blah blah blah. allegory. now. i got it.) in order to set us apart from our lives a bit. Normally, we would pretend like we're observers and exceptions, while we are in fact the subjects and the perpetrators. In this case, however, we are truly observing. M.T.'s decision in making this book take place in the future gives us the perception that we are the past. We are no longer the hip youngsters that keep up with the latest fad. When we read this book, we are the oldies- the ones who barely understand the new lingo and see this way of life as ridiculous. We are now the past generation, in theory. Having this external point of view on an allegory of our lives, we can see better understand how our lives may seem stupid.
One of the main things that M.T. does is that he focuses of the idea of feed and lesions. Though they might not quite exist in our world, they are used to help M.T. accentuate his point about disembodiment. When compared to the characters in Feed, the people in our world are more physical. We still take on physical activities such as writing and typing, which they do not. Most of the things that the characters do occur within their Feed. There really is no need for their bodies. They're just an accessory that can host lesions, which would just be the detail of the accessory. Both the feed and the lesions, combined, show that the distinction between characters is not within their thoughts, knowledge or insights. Their distinction depends on how superficial a person (e.g. Quendy) can get. This just reinforces the fact that this is an allegory.
If art was to be a hammer that shapes our lives, then Feed is an extremely small hammer that is given to only certain people. However, it is quite the mirror. For those who can see this as an allegory, many people would not do anything dramatic to change their lives. For instance, I know for a fact that I haven't changed any of my digital habits after reading Feed. Feed is simply a mirror of any image we've already seen, but prettier. Most of us already thinks that too much digitalization is bad for us, and that we should spend more time on the things that contribute to our education and our natural...ness. Although we are given this insight about digitalization, it does not necessarily mean that we are given the incentive to change our way of life. We might understand that Feed is a reflection of our lives, but we still, perhaps subconsciously, believe that M.T. exaggerates to some extent. And as a result, we do not grasp onto the fact that we're heading towards our own downfall. We still believe that we would ever reach such a tragedy. We still believe that there's still a chance to change. Feed, along with every other attempts, is not a strong enough hammer to save the world.
Being that I am one with guidance and thus able to perceive this as a piece of art, I suspected that M.T. chose to set this book in the future (yeah. blah blah blah. allegory. now. i got it.) in order to set us apart from our lives a bit. Normally, we would pretend like we're observers and exceptions, while we are in fact the subjects and the perpetrators. In this case, however, we are truly observing. M.T.'s decision in making this book take place in the future gives us the perception that we are the past. We are no longer the hip youngsters that keep up with the latest fad. When we read this book, we are the oldies- the ones who barely understand the new lingo and see this way of life as ridiculous. We are now the past generation, in theory. Having this external point of view on an allegory of our lives, we can see better understand how our lives may seem stupid.
One of the main things that M.T. does is that he focuses of the idea of feed and lesions. Though they might not quite exist in our world, they are used to help M.T. accentuate his point about disembodiment. When compared to the characters in Feed, the people in our world are more physical. We still take on physical activities such as writing and typing, which they do not. Most of the things that the characters do occur within their Feed. There really is no need for their bodies. They're just an accessory that can host lesions, which would just be the detail of the accessory. Both the feed and the lesions, combined, show that the distinction between characters is not within their thoughts, knowledge or insights. Their distinction depends on how superficial a person (e.g. Quendy) can get. This just reinforces the fact that this is an allegory.
If art was to be a hammer that shapes our lives, then Feed is an extremely small hammer that is given to only certain people. However, it is quite the mirror. For those who can see this as an allegory, many people would not do anything dramatic to change their lives. For instance, I know for a fact that I haven't changed any of my digital habits after reading Feed. Feed is simply a mirror of any image we've already seen, but prettier. Most of us already thinks that too much digitalization is bad for us, and that we should spend more time on the things that contribute to our education and our natural...ness. Although we are given this insight about digitalization, it does not necessarily mean that we are given the incentive to change our way of life. We might understand that Feed is a reflection of our lives, but we still, perhaps subconsciously, believe that M.T. exaggerates to some extent. And as a result, we do not grasp onto the fact that we're heading towards our own downfall. We still believe that we would ever reach such a tragedy. We still believe that there's still a chance to change. Feed, along with every other attempts, is not a strong enough hammer to save the world.
Monday, October 19, 2009
Feed B [HW #13]
Feed was artistically successful, only to all those resist the feed. Only those who (remotely) control their mental activities- not us, or allow/are forced to be guided by the (remotely) "enlightened"- us, would see that this is a reflection of our lives. For all the others- the people who read this book as it is, looking for the traditional plot, this book is just any ordinary collection of papers with the same tiny symbols, mixed and matched in different combination that tells the reader random stuff from a random outside source. The book is the Feed.
Being that I am one with guidance and thus able to perceive this as a piece of art, I suspected that M.T. chose to set this book in the future (yeah. blah blah blah. allegory. now. i got it.) in order to set us apart from our lives a bit. Normally, we would pretend like we're observers and exceptions, while we are in fact the subjects and the perpetrators. In this case, however, we are truly observing. M.T.'s decision in making this book take place in the future gives us the perception that we are the past. We are no longer the hip youngsters that keep up with the latest fad. When we read this book, we are the oldies- the ones who barely understand the new lingo and see this way of life as ridiculous. We are now the past generation, in theory. Having this external point of view on an allegory of our lives, we can see better understand how our lives may seem stupid.
One of the main things that M.T. does is that he focuses of the idea of feed and lesions. Though they might not quite exist in our world, they are used to help M.T. accentuate his point about disembodiment. When compared to the characters in Feed, the people in our world are more physical. We still take on physical activities such as writing and typing, which they do not. Most of the things that the characters do occur within their Feed. There really is no need for their bodies. They're just an accessory that can host lesions, which would just be the detail of the accessory. Both the feed and the lesions, combined, show that the distinction between characters is not within their thoughts, knowledge or insights. Their distinction depends on how superficial a person (e.g. Quendy) can get. This just reinforces the fact that this is an allegory.
Being that I am one with guidance and thus able to perceive this as a piece of art, I suspected that M.T. chose to set this book in the future (yeah. blah blah blah. allegory. now. i got it.) in order to set us apart from our lives a bit. Normally, we would pretend like we're observers and exceptions, while we are in fact the subjects and the perpetrators. In this case, however, we are truly observing. M.T.'s decision in making this book take place in the future gives us the perception that we are the past. We are no longer the hip youngsters that keep up with the latest fad. When we read this book, we are the oldies- the ones who barely understand the new lingo and see this way of life as ridiculous. We are now the past generation, in theory. Having this external point of view on an allegory of our lives, we can see better understand how our lives may seem stupid.
One of the main things that M.T. does is that he focuses of the idea of feed and lesions. Though they might not quite exist in our world, they are used to help M.T. accentuate his point about disembodiment. When compared to the characters in Feed, the people in our world are more physical. We still take on physical activities such as writing and typing, which they do not. Most of the things that the characters do occur within their Feed. There really is no need for their bodies. They're just an accessory that can host lesions, which would just be the detail of the accessory. Both the feed and the lesions, combined, show that the distinction between characters is not within their thoughts, knowledge or insights. Their distinction depends on how superficial a person (e.g. Quendy) can get. This just reinforces the fact that this is an allegory.
Feed A [HW #12]
Feed da da da great book da da da. It represents our da da da lives.
With the guidance of an adult figure, we realized that Feed is actually an allegory. And with that being said, we went on a search for the specifics. One blogger noticed that the details of the setting were kept to a minimal, and he connected that the video projects of Andy and John in class 1. Both the videos and the book implied that we're not aware of our surroundings when we're engulf ourselves in technology. It's always about "Wait, what did he say?" or the "I know he did not just say that" or the "Say it to my face, asshole." And now our awareness of the environment has been reduced down to "We went to the moon" (3) and "We went back to Earth" (75).
"I was disgusted, like Huh? You can see her like muscles and tendons and ligaments and stuff through the lesions. Yeah, said Marty, which makes you kind of think about what's inside, huh? Which is sexy." (199)- I saw lesions as a parallel to us whining about our flaws. We boast about our imperfections in order to grab attention, similar to how Quendy would surgically cut herself open to look "sexy." It is something that reveals tiny aspects of our lives (bodies in their case).
Yeah, Violet was an important character. Throughout the whole book, she was always riding the line between sparking a revolution and fitting in with the dumb people. She tried to be critical and true, while being fun and accepted. To some degree, we all do that as well. It's just a matter of how far we go until we eliminate the contradiction and pick a side (and it would appear that we tend to go towards the fun and accepted- it's probably due to the fear of being "mean"). But Violet never really got to that point, before dying.
Every time Violet would present to Titus and his posse, the bigger picture, they would either: a) call her crazy and "yelling, 'Fuck you!' at her body" b) get distracted by the minor details (which are important too, but the characters in this book just see it as it is- and so do we). It's kind of like if one person said, "Yo, Disney is evil. It's taking over our childhoods. Our childhood is Disney," and the other person responded, "I loooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooove Disney!" Everyone neglects what Violet says. Perhaps changing our way of life is far too overwhelming for us. So we'd rather omit or postpone (mostly omit) the problem presented.
Being that Violet appears to be the only person that understands the situation that they are in, and that she ends up dying, Feed could represent the very last moments of that human conscience still exists, assuming it still does. Digital technology has finally obtained monopoly.
The party is over. The fucking party is over.
With the guidance of an adult figure, we realized that Feed is actually an allegory. And with that being said, we went on a search for the specifics. One blogger noticed that the details of the setting were kept to a minimal, and he connected that the video projects of Andy and John in class 1. Both the videos and the book implied that we're not aware of our surroundings when we're engulf ourselves in technology. It's always about "Wait, what did he say?" or the "I know he did not just say that" or the "Say it to my face, asshole." And now our awareness of the environment has been reduced down to "We went to the moon" (3) and "We went back to Earth" (75).
"I was disgusted, like Huh? You can see her like muscles and tendons and ligaments and stuff through the lesions. Yeah, said Marty, which makes you kind of think about what's inside, huh? Which is sexy." (199)- I saw lesions as a parallel to us whining about our flaws. We boast about our imperfections in order to grab attention, similar to how Quendy would surgically cut herself open to look "sexy." It is something that reveals tiny aspects of our lives (bodies in their case).
Yeah, Violet was an important character. Throughout the whole book, she was always riding the line between sparking a revolution and fitting in with the dumb people. She tried to be critical and true, while being fun and accepted. To some degree, we all do that as well. It's just a matter of how far we go until we eliminate the contradiction and pick a side (and it would appear that we tend to go towards the fun and accepted- it's probably due to the fear of being "mean"). But Violet never really got to that point, before dying.
Every time Violet would present to Titus and his posse, the bigger picture, they would either: a) call her crazy and "yelling, 'Fuck you!' at her body" b) get distracted by the minor details (which are important too, but the characters in this book just see it as it is- and so do we). It's kind of like if one person said, "Yo, Disney is evil. It's taking over our childhoods. Our childhood is Disney," and the other person responded, "I loooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooove Disney!" Everyone neglects what Violet says. Perhaps changing our way of life is far too overwhelming for us. So we'd rather omit or postpone (mostly omit) the problem presented.
Being that Violet appears to be the only person that understands the situation that they are in, and that she ends up dying, Feed could represent the very last moments of that human conscience still exists, assuming it still does. Digital technology has finally obtained monopoly.
The party is over. The fucking party is over.
Thursday, October 8, 2009
844-4447777#4447777#6999#3399733777444633668 [HW #11]
For the experiment, I was initially going to try the 36-Hours digital fasting. But then I realized that wasn't really possible without sabotaging my grades. My next plan was to do a digital binge. However, this is an experiment and overdosing on digital technology wouldn't be any new or insightful- at least, for me. The thing that I did finally decide to do was- texting. Yeah, I know right... Being that I've never texted a full conversation before, this was something new to me.
Prior to this experiment, for the most part, there was always a clear separation between having digital conversations and being in the less isolated outdoors. There is usually a direct correlation between sitting and digital stuff, however this was not the case.
During this approximately 30-minutes experiment (probably would've taken 2 minutes, tops, if I had just called them), I was struggling to represent my generic, digital thoughts. There was an unspoken expectation of everyone being fun and consistent on their phones, that I failed to meet. I also failed to coordinate myself to type speak through numbers.
Throughout these 30 minutes or so, I was constantly anticipating a vibration, followed by a sudden ring. After feeling these two sensations, I was aware that the other person have already read what I "said," processed the information, "thought" about it, formed a "new" thought, and responded through their feasible thumbs.
This experiment went to an abrupt ending when I entered an underground passageway to be transported to the other side of New York City. Thereafter, I was completely isolated from the rest of the world. All five of my bars disappeared and I was left alone, by myself.
Don't believe the hype. And don't pay that $15/month (or whatever).
Prior to this experiment, for the most part, there was always a clear separation between having digital conversations and being in the less isolated outdoors. There is usually a direct correlation between sitting and digital stuff, however this was not the case.
During this approximately 30-minutes experiment (probably would've taken 2 minutes, tops, if I had just called them), I was struggling to represent my generic, digital thoughts. There was an unspoken expectation of everyone being fun and consistent on their phones, that I failed to meet. I also failed to coordinate myself to type speak through numbers.
Throughout these 30 minutes or so, I was constantly anticipating a vibration, followed by a sudden ring. After feeling these two sensations, I was aware that the other person have already read what I "said," processed the information, "thought" about it, formed a "new" thought, and responded through their feasible thumbs.
This experiment went to an abrupt ending when I entered an underground passageway to be transported to the other side of New York City. Thereafter, I was completely isolated from the rest of the world. All five of my bars disappeared and I was left alone, by myself.
Don't believe the hype. And don't pay that $15/month (or whatever).
Sunday, October 4, 2009
The Blame Game [HW #10]
Daniel Petric
I'm sure many people has already heard about the kid that killed his mom for taking away his Halo 3, but I think it wouldn't hurt (us, hopefully) to bring this back up and relate it to the course. The most obvious, unusual thing about this is that a person would go to such extremes for a video game. Many people have done some crazy stuff over a video game (e.g. the kid shown in this viral video). But this is a case where the player is being played by the video game. Aside from this, the thing that really caught my attention was their defense. "They based their defense on what they described as Petric's video game addiction." They're blaming the video game (not saying that they shouldn't, partially) for causing him to reach the point of insanity, where he is unable to identify the intensity of death. It's kind of like a drug addict saying "It's not my fault that this shit is so addictive."
Why Does Technology Advance in Cycles?
"This hypothesis that drastic technological change causes the economic downturn, stands in contrast to the ‘depression trigger’ model of Mensch where it is the downturn that cause the wave of technological change"- This article was too complicated for my understanding, and too long for my attention span- maybe it has to do with my instant satisfaction from instant entertainment from DRDs. But from I did read, it seems like change in technology can cause a depression, or a depression can cause a change in technology. If both are true, then society would be in a never ending cycle. I don't fully understand it, but it seems like something worth evaluating. If economy and digital technology leaves us in such complications, then why have it? There's a lot of crap that we do in our lives that only serves as an obstacle that we create, and contributes to the game that we created.
Saying Yes to No
This article is just a sum-up of David Walsh's lecture, "Saying Yes to No." There are some things that I definitely agree about this lecture, and some things that I definitely disagree with. One thing that I agree with, and I think the rest of the class would agree with, is that "media are a powerful entity that can be beneficial or detrimental." I also agree with his phrase, "More, fast, easy and fun." This, I would say, is the most interesting part of the whole article. That is mainly because it wraps up the American mindset, for the most part. It's all about the efficiency, the entertainment, and the efficiency of the entertainment.
In his lecture, Walsh blames the youth's obsession with digital technology on the lack of discipline, and he suggests that it is significant to develop that discipline. I agree that discipline is important, along with most of the things says; however, he says in a condescending tone. It implies that he looks down at the latest generation, and that the older generations are more disciplined because they were less consumed by the media and digital technology. That is the part that I disagree with.
Putting everything else aside, I'm still not sure if I agree or disagree with one of his main themes, which is: "Whoever tells the stories defines the culture." Still thinking about it.
I'm sure many people has already heard about the kid that killed his mom for taking away his Halo 3, but I think it wouldn't hurt (us, hopefully) to bring this back up and relate it to the course. The most obvious, unusual thing about this is that a person would go to such extremes for a video game. Many people have done some crazy stuff over a video game (e.g. the kid shown in this viral video). But this is a case where the player is being played by the video game. Aside from this, the thing that really caught my attention was their defense. "They based their defense on what they described as Petric's video game addiction." They're blaming the video game (not saying that they shouldn't, partially) for causing him to reach the point of insanity, where he is unable to identify the intensity of death. It's kind of like a drug addict saying "It's not my fault that this shit is so addictive."
Why Does Technology Advance in Cycles?
"This hypothesis that drastic technological change causes the economic downturn, stands in contrast to the ‘depression trigger’ model of Mensch where it is the downturn that cause the wave of technological change"- This article was too complicated for my understanding, and too long for my attention span- maybe it has to do with my instant satisfaction from instant entertainment from DRDs. But from I did read, it seems like change in technology can cause a depression, or a depression can cause a change in technology. If both are true, then society would be in a never ending cycle. I don't fully understand it, but it seems like something worth evaluating. If economy and digital technology leaves us in such complications, then why have it? There's a lot of crap that we do in our lives that only serves as an obstacle that we create, and contributes to the game that we created.
Saying Yes to No
This article is just a sum-up of David Walsh's lecture, "Saying Yes to No." There are some things that I definitely agree about this lecture, and some things that I definitely disagree with. One thing that I agree with, and I think the rest of the class would agree with, is that "media are a powerful entity that can be beneficial or detrimental." I also agree with his phrase, "More, fast, easy and fun." This, I would say, is the most interesting part of the whole article. That is mainly because it wraps up the American mindset, for the most part. It's all about the efficiency, the entertainment, and the efficiency of the entertainment.
In his lecture, Walsh blames the youth's obsession with digital technology on the lack of discipline, and he suggests that it is significant to develop that discipline. I agree that discipline is important, along with most of the things says; however, he says in a condescending tone. It implies that he looks down at the latest generation, and that the older generations are more disciplined because they were less consumed by the media and digital technology. That is the part that I disagree with.
Putting everything else aside, I'm still not sure if I agree or disagree with one of his main themes, which is: "Whoever tells the stories defines the culture." Still thinking about it.
Thursday, October 1, 2009
Triangular Comments 2[HW #8- ABCDEF]
Comment for John's Blog
Hello buddy, I am here once again to give you comments today.
This is definitely one of the more unique videos. You covered many different aspects of digitalization in your life, as opposed to the popular: what the person look like when they're using the computer. I also like the fact that you included the walk on the boardwalk as a (fragile)contradiction to your digital life.
From what I've read in your description, it appears that digitalization does not consistently have a firm grasp on your life. But when it does, you feel like your hours are cut short for that one day.
I think that your boardwalk example connects to the discussions that teenagers have nowadays (that is including myself, sometimes). In the same way that music has tainted your walk on the board walk, many other different forms of DRD distracts us from the discussions that we have with one another. For example, recently I've noticed that more and more people are talking to their friends on the subway, with their headphones in one ear, and just listening to their friends with the other.
"Pretty much i look like a zombie when i'm on the computer, when i'm playing a more interactive game like fight night 2 i get immersed so much that my body reacts to everything happening within the game."- To develop this further, why do you think this is? Are we creating a fake reality within our reality? Or perhaps we're just less "dead" when we're doing stuff that we enjoy, or maybe we really less obligated to do?
After watching your video and reading your post, I will begin to pay more attention to what my focal point is when I'm walking down the streets, or sitting in the subway. Maybe by evaluating this, I can also evaluate how distracted I am from the non-digital life around me, that involves humans rather than zombies.
Anyways, I enjoyed watching your video. It was certainly one of the more interesting. And good luck on those votes/nominations for this video.
Comment for Gavin's Blog
Thanks for the unfiltered reactions towards playing Halo, and getting owned. They're certainly the most important aspects of your gameplay. Like John said, I appreciate that you are well aware that this is a video that will be watching, and that you are trying to live up to the standard of videos being entertaining. You being owned definitely met that standard (lawlz).
From what I can tell, using the computer and playing video games would be your first preference. And instead, you'd rather be "reading or exercising, or just taking a walk, or socializing offline."
At around the seventh minute, your mom says "dinner is ready," and you simply replied by saying "okay" (or "O.K."- I'm not sure). Just this one segment connects to almost all of lives; at least to my life. That "okay" statement is kind of like an automatic program that has been implanted into our heads to immediately eliminate the obstacle; in this case, it would be the nagging of the parents.
One thing that I would suggest is that you trim down your video, but at the same time, retain those moments of QQing. Also, I was wondering what you thought about people not appearing as too happy (like you said third question), but yet keep this consistent motion of logging onto the internet or onto Facebook, or what have you. Do you think that their is a lack in that happy emotion? Or just the expression of that happy emotion? =]
Reading your answer to the first question, combined with reading Esther's post, I feel that my belief about constant entertainment is reinforced. We are always pressured to entertained, or be entertained. In some cases, like you said, we cannot do so without music or any alterations.
Alright, I'm out. Oh, by the way..."I didn't look quite happy"- cause you got OWNED.
Hello buddy, I am here once again to give you comments today.
This is definitely one of the more unique videos. You covered many different aspects of digitalization in your life, as opposed to the popular: what the person look like when they're using the computer. I also like the fact that you included the walk on the boardwalk as a (fragile)contradiction to your digital life.
From what I've read in your description, it appears that digitalization does not consistently have a firm grasp on your life. But when it does, you feel like your hours are cut short for that one day.
I think that your boardwalk example connects to the discussions that teenagers have nowadays (that is including myself, sometimes). In the same way that music has tainted your walk on the board walk, many other different forms of DRD distracts us from the discussions that we have with one another. For example, recently I've noticed that more and more people are talking to their friends on the subway, with their headphones in one ear, and just listening to their friends with the other.
"Pretty much i look like a zombie when i'm on the computer, when i'm playing a more interactive game like fight night 2 i get immersed so much that my body reacts to everything happening within the game."- To develop this further, why do you think this is? Are we creating a fake reality within our reality? Or perhaps we're just less "dead" when we're doing stuff that we enjoy, or maybe we really less obligated to do?
After watching your video and reading your post, I will begin to pay more attention to what my focal point is when I'm walking down the streets, or sitting in the subway. Maybe by evaluating this, I can also evaluate how distracted I am from the non-digital life around me, that involves humans rather than zombies.
Anyways, I enjoyed watching your video. It was certainly one of the more interesting. And good luck on those votes/nominations for this video.
Comment for Gavin's Blog
Thanks for the unfiltered reactions towards playing Halo, and getting owned. They're certainly the most important aspects of your gameplay. Like John said, I appreciate that you are well aware that this is a video that will be watching, and that you are trying to live up to the standard of videos being entertaining. You being owned definitely met that standard (lawlz).
From what I can tell, using the computer and playing video games would be your first preference. And instead, you'd rather be "reading or exercising, or just taking a walk, or socializing offline."
At around the seventh minute, your mom says "dinner is ready," and you simply replied by saying "okay" (or "O.K."- I'm not sure). Just this one segment connects to almost all of lives; at least to my life. That "okay" statement is kind of like an automatic program that has been implanted into our heads to immediately eliminate the obstacle; in this case, it would be the nagging of the parents.
One thing that I would suggest is that you trim down your video, but at the same time, retain those moments of QQing. Also, I was wondering what you thought about people not appearing as too happy (like you said third question), but yet keep this consistent motion of logging onto the internet or onto Facebook, or what have you. Do you think that their is a lack in that happy emotion? Or just the expression of that happy emotion? =]
Reading your answer to the first question, combined with reading Esther's post, I feel that my belief about constant entertainment is reinforced. We are always pressured to entertained, or be entertained. In some cases, like you said, we cannot do so without music or any alterations.
Alright, I'm out. Oh, by the way..."I didn't look quite happy"- cause you got OWNED.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)