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.
Wednesday, November 25, 2009
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.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)