Internet smart?

"Even when I’m not working, I’m as likely as not to be foraging in the Web’s info-thickets’reading and writing e-mails, scanning headlines and blog posts, watching videos and listening to podcasts, or just tripping from link to link to link." As clearly stated by Nicholas Carr, the internet has really taken over our everyday activities and focuses. We have become dependent on the internet to the point that we cant go without trying to "google" something or trying to look something up on the internet, because we all know its faster, simpler, and easier. But does such dependency ultimately lead us to more knowledge or does it simply makes us stupid? In my opinion i believe the internet has made us unconscious to certain things, in a way this seems ironic because there is so much information on the net. But it makes us stupider, because we stop to look at things in a substantive manner. Instead of trying to dig below the surface of a book, an idea or a concept, we find ourselves barely skimming the surface on the web. as clearly stated by Carr, we simply scan over articles and don really even read the whole article, we solely look for a simple fact and then boom were off to another page or another article to skim. Moreover, i also believe the internet makes us stupid because we can at any time just look something up without having to work hard to find it out , and maybe such condition leads us to not think of stuff as being so important or truly giving them the attention they deserve. We have become dependent on websites such as sparknotes, and have lost the capability of reading a book for itself and understanding it in our own way, instead we rely on the internet's interpretation of such book and we fall into their type of thinking. "They supply the stuff of thought, but they also shape the process of thought. And what the Net seems to be doing is chipping away my capacity for concentration and contemplation. My mind now expects to take in information the way the Net distributes it: in a swiftly moving stream of particles. Once I was a scuba diver in the sea of words. Now I zip along the surface like a guy on a Jet Ski." So what is the internet really doing to our brain, you decide for yourself?

"But the culture we have now fetishises the recipient of the text to the degree that they become a partial or whole author of it. " in other words what i think kirbys is putting out, is that our society has become the creators of what is happening in the world today. we are the sole producers of all the technological phenomenon that is abducting our every form of expression or desire. It is crazy to think that we are the ones who have created devices that are so technologically advanced that someday they could surpass and even ultimately take control of our society more than they already have today. Moreover, i like how he mentions the fact that "By definition, pseudo-modern cultural products cannot and do not exist unless the individual intervenes physically in them. " In essence we are the consumers, we are what make the corporate technological world keep going and going. From ipods, to macs, to digital cameras, to cellphones, we are the ones who choose to buy these products and therefore we solely contribute to the control they have over us. It almost seems as if you are not accepted in the society were you aren't kept up with the latest fashion, or the newest device, because that's how we have formed our society to be. I mean what would happen if everybody stopped buying ipods? what would be of our life on earth? would music be dead as we know it? long trips in the car be worthless? How is it that we can live in a world that supports the "powerful machines" that are taking control of us and yet we cant even realize that we are the generators of such happenings. people seemed to be shocked about how advanced we have become , and they seem to a point to be scared of what could happen regarding this knowledge, but yet we sit here unconsciously engulfing all these items , we would really fear if we took time to think about what it is that we are really doing? What are we doing by creating these technological phenomenons?

The book Cat's Cradle so far seems to hold a lot of Postmodernist views.In by barely beginning the book that postmodernist views are held in this book. For example, just as in the book "postmodernism for beginners", it is said that we are arranged in different interest groups or to say different clicks, cat's cradle holds the same idea. For example this shared idea becomes clear when the author points out,"We bokononists believe that humanity is organized into teams, teams that do God's will without ever discovering what they are doing. such a team is called a Karass by Bokonon..." Therefore it becomes clear that author of cats' cradle also believes that we are put into different groups, or that we in essence choose to be a part of the group we feel more comfortable and accepted by. We are a bunch of individuals packed into teams trying to serve a cause or reach an ultimate goal, but that is if there is one? Moreover in the book postmodernism for beginners it is said that science is really just science for its own sake, and that therefore science does not unravel a universal truth, it is just a part of narratives and gran narratives but there is not one absolute fact that makes everything the truth in science. This idea is further exemplified in the books cat's cradle by the obvious scientific characterization of the main character Felix Hoenniker. He is the constructor of the atomic bomb but " he just wasn't interested in people" and when he is told that "science has now known sin" he simply responds "what is sin"? therefore this all helps to parallel what is being said in the postmodernist view, because here he is being a significant scientific figure, but he is not at all concerned for people and he also seems to not have a clue about morality, he is amoral. Moreover, his lack of concentration on constructing the bomb shows that he really has no interest and is just doing it to do it. therefore science, in this book, is seen as again being done for its own sake not for the better of the people, and it really holds no universal truth to which we can gain. All in all cat's cradle exemplifies several postmodernist views.

There are several ideas i would like to talk about in my analysis of Brave New World. These are for example, the relationship between what is seein in the novel and how it parallels our world today, or the fact that the people seem to be living in a society that holds false pretenses, or the fact that the peopl are being controlled by not having the ability to express their emotions, or maybe the idea that ther is no truo definition of happiness, what is happiness, what is productiveness? These are all idaes i find hidden throughout the book Brave New World and each one brings on differnet perspectives in my reading of the novel. My thesis could be " In the book A brave New World, it is not hard to beleive that the notion of two opposing world battling for survial parralels the world we find ourselves living in todays' society". A couple resources i could use for support to such analysis could be the book 1984, or even a song from one of my favorite bands. The reason why i could i use 1984 for support, is because it seems to parallel BRave new world through a certain aspect, the people in both societies are in a way hindered from the "truth" and niether societies are allowed to express their individuality, both societies in these two books seem to be in reality two societies struggling to overcome one another. Therefore i could tie in these smiliarites betwee the two books to express my ideas of brave new world and have other perspective throught which i could arrive at my comments. Moreover, the reason why i could use the song from the band Enter Shikari, is because it first of all comes off their new album which holds the idea of government power and in a way how we are being overcome by technology and capatilastic views. The Intro has fascninating lyrics which tie into the whole fact of what society are we truly turning into, are we being controlled by technological advances, are we truly becoming productive, or are we solely complying to the wishes and desires of other who stifle us with their chains of power. What does it mean to live in the society we do today? Must we unite? these are a couple reasons as to why i could tie this track into my analysis of brave new world.

Lyrics: "An aidless and harrowing future is developing for our generation and generations to come.But as I walk the chartered streets of this familiar oblivion I recognize nothing but underling unconsciousness.In which we have almost comfortably drowned.It is madness! This normality is madnessWe are clinging to manufactured crippling constraintsWe must no longer commute between brand laden homes and quickly accepted aimless roams from our factories of slavery to walls of illusive bravery[We must unite!]And we must let the floodgates open.Here tonight I clock a thousand heads!Here to unite through, common, Dreads."

What are the functions of myths/narratives? I believe myths and narratives have very valuable functions in every given society or culture. Myths and narratives help keep everybody or almost everybody in a society on the same track. They serve to show those people coming into the tribe or society or those who are being born into it, the way of life that has been adapted as according to their ancestors . "The myth defines what has the right to be said and done in the culture"(25). In other words as said in the book postmodernism, i believe what this is saying is that basically myths are the law of the land for certain societies. Therefore myths set the guidelines for the different cultures. What their ancestors have brought to the table and the custom and rituals they followed or invented provide the outline to what the society as a whole should act like or be like. Myths can be utilized as a way to steer the whole community in one direction and this could be a good thing or a bad thing depending on their usage in my view. Because they can be used to make people believe certain things that are not trues such as in a brave New World, or they can simply be utilized as a reference to how things can be done and not exactly force the inhabitants to abide by the law of the myths. Moreover for a more literal interpretation of myths/narratives , as said in Postmodernism book, "according to Lyotard, since science cannot depend upon science to legitimize itself, it must turn to narrative!". So therefore, narratives serve the function of in a way explaining and providing support for the actual use of science. Why is science used? what is the purpose of science? these questions cannot be answered by science itself and so therefore it is the job of narrative to make these justifications for the purpose of science. so basically science without narrative cannot exist, because the narratives are the backbone for science, and therefore stories are told to help provide feedback on the basis of science. we cannot answer the question"why should there be scientific activity in the first place? we cannot respond by saying because science is knowledge. but rather by stating a story, and saying, it is because science is god for the well being of the population, it helps to inform citizens about the good and bad things that are happening and how we as a whole can help fix them, therefore i have made a narrative to support this question.

Is the object of our existence to be efficient by producing more people, or by helping machines produce and ultimately control or behaviors, or is the real objective of our existence as human beings to be happy by the love we have between our family members, and the everyday "special moments" that happen at random? This is where i disagree with the book a brave new world. I don't believe that by making the world a technologically advanced place of mass production we will ultimately gain happiness and knowledge. On the contrary i think that what makes us happy is the fact that we do have freedom to live our lives the way we choose, and by doing so we are able to establish a lifestyle we choose that makes us who we are and happy. Individuality to me does not come as a "society as a whole" but rather as the individual person by himself. The way he chooses to dress and act, and the lifestyle he chooses to follow. By expressing "individuality" as the whole society as in brave new world, i think they are in reality solely establishing a controlled society which is subject to their ideas of happiness. I see the argument in a way, that the author is trying to send to the readers, and if happiness and success was really measured in production than it would totally be correct, but i don't see it that way and therefore i don't believe it to be reality. However, i do believe that that ideas expressed in this book are extremely catchy. Because we dont know what the future will ever be like, i mean look at our society now, it is already so technologically advanced that its almost impossible to believe. Therefore, i also appreciate the fact that the author went the way he did with his ideas, which may seem so weird to us, but who knows what will happen, and we cant say we haven't atleast gave some thought to these ideas before.

My blog you can read if ya want.

In class we talked about how history is written and what topics should be included and which ones should be emphasized more than others, but sadly there is where the problem lies. How do we know that the history that is set in "facts" through history books or in our minds is true. History is written by the winners, that is to say that history is and will always be distorted from reality no matter what. The reason being that those who win wars, win battles, or destroy civilizations will always project themselves in history and therefore history will always be told through their eyes and through their accomplishments. But does that necessarily mean that the truth is that of the winners, or is it that in a way we will be in a society like that of 1984 where reality is distorted by those who hold the power? Moreover i think it is very important to include minorities in history because they too have contributed to the way history has been created. It is not fair or accurate for certain groups to be left out pf history solely because they are/ or were not the powerful groups. That is almost like saying there is a war between germany and the U.S., the U.S. won but they dont include in history that the the U.S. won with the help of France. Therefore, i believe just as the powerful groups have led history the minorities should also be a part of something they contributed and even played a big role in.