Greg's Blog

MT 6.2

2006-04-27T16:24:00.000-05:00

When the printing press is used as a metaphor for the mind, it highlights a number of ideas about how we think. The pressings that a printing press creates last for a long time, much like our memories. The metaphor of mind = printing press is one of the reasons people always talk about the importance of first impressions. If the printing press did not work correctly the first time it was used, that meant something was wrong and it had to be fixed, but if the first impression was good then the press could be put to use. This leads; however, to an aspect that the metaphor hides. When something has been imprinted by a printing press, it is unalterable. The mind does not work like that, it can be changed and altered as new information is entered into it (blatant use of mind = computer). The first impression is always there as a memory, but it is no longer what the mind primarily associates with the person.

Thinking of the mind as a computer is a better metaphor than the mind as a printing press. When I hear important information I always think to myself, “I should file that away.” While I think that metaphor originally had to do with filing cabinets, it has transferred as new technology gives new meaning to the work file (i.e. what data is stored in on a computer). A compute even has memory, just like our minds. Mental disorders and other illnesses can be compared to programming glitches or other computer issues. For example, amnesia could be compared to reformatting your hard drive and just like how amnesia patients can recover partially or fully, a computers memory can also be partially or fully restored. One of the places that the metaphor falls short deals with whom or what is responsible. When a file is opened on a computer, it is a conscious act. Unless it is set to open automatically by the user, it cannot open itself. Memories, as files, do not always work like that. Sometimes memories surface all on their own against the will of the person whose memories they are. Computers can also be upgraded to enhance their capabilities. However much I wish this was true of the human mind, it is not. If I bought a game and it turns out my video card of video driver is out of date I can update it. It always seems all of my exams are on the same days. I never like this because it means that I have to study and remember a wide variety of information and be able to recall it at will. Eventually I just reach my limit where further study is useless and no matter how many times I try, I will not remember anything new. At this point, I can’t go out and upgrade my mind to give it more processing power, or increase my RAM or hard drive.

I think that the printing press metaphor helped us to understand how we deal with emotional issues and how we first interpret events, people, or actions while the computer metaphor may just be used to better describe how the mind works (i.e. recalling the memories that have been impressed upon us). The printing press metaphor fails when it comes to the fact that memory and emotions are changeable and are not permanent they way they are with actual printing presses. With a computer, the metaphor fails when it comes to a computers ability to be upgraded to handle situations for which it was not originally designed to handle.

In the end I feel that the metaphor switch from printing press to computers just was made for the simple reason that technology has advanced. As technology advances over time, it starts to work more and more like people do. Biometrics is already coming to play in the computer industry and research has already been done to make computers more organic than machine. If this trend continues then the metaphor will need to change again as the issue of the mind = a computer will no longer be a metaphor, but instead be reality.

It was pointed out to me that there are ways of improving your memory and ability to recall information through mental techniques and such. When I wrote that the metaphor fails because computers, specifically memory, can be upgraded and our memories can’t be, I was thinking in the physical world. With a computer, the memory is physically removed and upgraded with a better model. After thinking some more, I suppose upgrading a computers video card could be compared to getting laser eye surgery.

MT 6.3

2006-04-20T20:54:00.000-05:00

Women and Depression
Chemical exchanges are like a washing machine
Serotonin is water
Depression = faulty washing machine

By relating chemical exchanges and the way our bodies work to a machine, we restrict ourselves. Any type of machine is only supposed to work in one specific way or function, and our body and the chemical exchanges that occur within it, while similar, and have some variation from person to person.

Comparing depression to a broken machine means that when someone is depressed, our action will be to attempt to fix or repair him as if he were a machine. The metaphor is also ambiguous as to who is responsible as machines can be broken both on purpose and by accident. However, the main way depression is treated is with anti-depressant medication. Using this metaphor, the medication would be a quick fix or temporary patch, the equivalent of holding a piece in place with your hand so the machine continues to work. Once the medication is stopped, the hand is removed and the piece pops back out and the machine stops functioning. One might argue that getting the machine professionally repaired (i.e. seeing a psychiatrist) is a permanent solution, but machines break down again. This metaphor leaves no permanent solution to the problem.

Feeling Good
Blues = improper tuning
Not being depressed = music being clear

Comparing the blues or feeling down to the improper tuning of a radio means that our corrective action would to just adjust the tuning to fix the problem. The problem is that it is a lot easier to fix the tuning of a radio station than it is to fix the tuning in how someone thinks and feels. The blame is not placed on the person, even though the situation that causes them to feel that way could have been brought on by their own actions. A good example of this is one of my friends. I love her to death and care about her, but I swear she makes the worst decisions I have ever seen and never seems to learn from them. These decisions leave her life in a mess that depresses her until her other friend and I pull her out of the situations she has gotten herself into. Her situation is brought on by her own actions and decisions, yet this metaphor would not place the blame on her.

“The Aetiology of Hysteria”
Symptoms of hysteria are ruins
Illness = buried remains
Building a monument = removing the symptoms

If the patient must be brought to the ruins in order to treat their hysteria, this metaphor places some of the responsibility on them. If the symptoms are the exposed rubble, they must be removed (treated) and then the explorer and the natives can find out what the real reason for the hysteria is. By bringing the real reason to surface, and rehashing that reason (building a monument), the ailment is removed. A problem with this metaphor is that it creates the notion that the ailment can be completely removed when in reality there are events so damaging that they can leave a person traumatized for the rest of their life.

Shifting Gears: Technology, Literature, Culture in Modernist America
Education = lubricant that diminishes friction
Young men = energy that can accomplish economic goals
Men = components

The metaphor that education is a lubricant or device that eliminates friction creates the idea that the more education someone has, the more productive they will be to society. In reality, the fact of the matter is that education isn’t the real cause; it is the individual’s personal drive and motivation. If you educate a group of lazy, worthless people all the way through to their PhD’s, you will still have a group of lazy, worthless people…with PhD’s.

My perspective on all of this is pretty much the same now as when I wrote it a few weeks ago. The one thing I have continued to think about is Freud’s metaphor as hysteria as ruins. He mentions in his writings that having natives around who knew of the ruins would not be very helpful as the natives are often untrustworthy. This got me thinking about how if we were asked about our way of life how helpful we would really be. Sure, I could provide a lot of information on my day to day life, but peoples’ lives are as different as the people themselves. I might also have the tendency to make my life look as good as possible. This reminded me of a Simpsons episode where Sideshow Bob is helping Homer find a man who is trying to kill Homer. Bob asks to observe Homer on a normal day, so Homer takes him hang gliding. When Bob asks if this is really what Homer does on a normal day, Homer replies that he was just trying to impress him. I think Freud had it right that the natives would not be very helpful. The natives might provide a few pieces of information to solving the puzzle of the ruins (i.e. hysteria), but they might not be entirely accurate and would still leave much unanswered.

MT 4.2

2006-04-18T23:42:00.000-05:00

When thinking of a person’s mental illness as a disease, the response is simply to treat it as you would any other disease. However, as it is often impossible to “cure” mental diseases, the response would be to treat the symptoms and just make their life as easy as possible depending on whatever their illness is. A disease is also not intentional; a person generally has very little control over whether or not he or she can get a disease.

If it is thought of as a spiritual problem, then the appropriate response is to pray or something (sorry, I’m an atheist). This seems to me then that people would just look for the easy answer out such as “It is the devil doing this to her” or “she has evil spirits inside her” instead of trying to find out what the actual problem is. This metaphor could be used to argue that the strange actions are intentional as something or someone has to be doing the possessing.

I personally would not treat them any differently, but history has shows that people are treated differently when looked at with the metaphor of their disorder being a spiritual problem. Eve is treated differently because people actually recognize her as having a problem that can be treated, or at the very least contained, whereas Margaret Cooper is prayed for, which is all well and good, except it doesn’t really do any good (opinion alert).

In some cases, both are not held accountable because in Eve’s case we recognize that it is not a person’s fault if he or she has a mental disorder and in Margaret’s case the accountability is put on the devil or evil spirits. However, in Margaret’s case, she can be held to some accountability because she must have done something bad to have these evil and bad things happen to her.

I think Hacking would say that the writer of The Three Faces of Eve is right and the other writer is wrong. Hacking seems to acknowledge the existence of disorders; he just questions the cause and appears to think that there are actually far less cases than actually diagnosed.

After rereading this, something came to mind that I had not thought of when writing this. When I wrote that in Margaret’s case she could be held to some accountability because she had to have done something bad to have these evil things happen to her, I forgot about a number of plays I have read that deal with the sins on the father coming back to haunt remaining family. This led me to remember one of the many things that I learned in Catholic schooling that I, as an atheist, had thought of as worthless at the time. I remembered that early Christianity often thought tat if bad things happened to you, it was because your parents had sinned. So with the metaphor of a mental disability = possession by an evil spirit, the accountability could even be paced in part on the parents. However, I am not sure at what points in time this belief was held, but I think it does cover the span of time in which the Margaret Cooper was “possessed.”

After actually seeing The Three Faces of Eve, my belief that Eve is treated differently is strengthened for the same reasons I listed earlier. My view on what Hacking thinks is also still the same.

MT 3.3

2006-04-13T21:55:00.000-05:00

I came across my first metaphor of technology describing humans when I was working on a marketing project. I was interviewing the manager of Oxford’s GNC and he mentioned in the course of talking about his customer base that only a few of the people who come in “are built.” When people hear about something being built, they think machines. If a person is built, then they are like a machine and one view is that they are something less than human. This got me thinking of plastic surgery and how people really are being built. Now if someone doesn’t like how practically their entire body looks, they can go in for surgery and come out looking like a brand new completely different person. I started thinking back to ENG 112 where my teacher talked about electronic enhancements such as hearing aids and how they make people into cyborgs. I don’t know if that metaphor by itself affects how people think and feel, but there are many people who are concerned over the amount of plastic surgery being done. However, these concerns, and how they affect public policy, mainly are due to concerns about health and safety than they are about turning people into artificial objects.

"Many of our Republican supporters are not happy because we are spending money like a drunken sailor.” (John McCain).
McCain is equating the fiscal policy and government spending of the current administration to that of sailors on shore leave. Most people view sailors on shore leave as getting drunk, blowing large amounts of money, and getting into fights. What McCain is actually saying is that the administration is just spending money recklessly with no thought of the future and the consequences.

“The War on Terror…I mean the ‘Long War’”
The war on terror is a metaphor because it is not really a war at all. War is defined as between countries, and because terrorists have no country, it cannot be a war. I guess it just sounded better than the “terror conflict” or the “fight on terror.” This has definitely affected public policy as it has allowed passage of such things as the ironically named P.A.T.R.I.O.T. act and led to public scandals such as the possibly illegal wiretapping act and the debates over leaks on possibly classified materials.

I think that the government decided to call it a war because of two main reasons. The first is in how a war has to be paid for. During a war, civilians are expected to give up or cut back on certain things that we normally consider part of our daily life. During World War 2, rationing occurred throughout the United States in terms of gasoline and many other amenities. With this war, the government has tried to not make the citizens pay in this way, but rather through curtailing our civil rights and basic liberties in exchange for a sense of security.
The argument that some terrorists do have nations raises a valid point, but is not as much an issue in the “war on terror.” In this war, our government seems to be targeting those terrorists that move between countries and often don’t stay in any given place for significant periods of time. In this war, we started out going after a country that harbored the terrorists (Afghanistan), but then the government decided to change from that strategy to a strategy of waging war on countries that are ruled by dictators who just aren’t very nice people.

I personally do not see terrorism as a war. Terrorism is a tactic that can be used in a larger strategy in waging a way; it is not the war itself. By calling terrorism a way, our government is able to call anyone who resists a terrorist instead of someone who might not have been happy having his country invaded and his home bombed. Looking at the insurgents’ tactics from a military perspective, they are not using terrorist tactics, but rather guerilla warfare. With the disparity of manpower and firepower in Iraq, that is the only way they can hope to fight U.S. forces and the Iraqi government, any other way would be suicide.

MT 1.2

2006-04-09T20:00:00.000-05:00

Equating anger with fire or explosives through the use of metaphors highlights many of the key aspects of the emotion. Anger is like an explosive because anger is in many cases violent and abrupt, and leaves a lasting affect. Explosions from dynamite are also abrupt and leave a lasting affect. Anger is also paired metaphorically with fire because when we equate emotions to temperature, anger is thought of as a “hot” emotion. A good example of this from older cartoons is when the characters got upset they would turn red and steam would come out from their ears because they were so angry they literally got hot enough to boil water.

Comparing anger to something as brief and intense as explosives also hides some aspects of the emotion. Anger does not have to be something that is felt suddenly and then fades abruptly. Sometimes anger can grow and develop over a long period of time such as in “The Poison Tree.” Anger is often an emotion that does not fade abruptly like an explosion. However, comparing anger to fire covers this as fire slowly burns down to embers, which stay hot for a long time until eventually dieing out.

I think that Blake is comparing anger to plants in this metaphor. He goes further and uses an apple as a physical representation of anger. His use of anger as a tree shows how anger can slowly develop over a long period of time when you keep your feelings and emotions to yourself instead of sharing them and working through the problem.
“I was angry with my friend; I told my wrath, my wrath did end. I was angry with my foe: I told it not, my wrath did grow.”

The only problem I have with this poem is that it seems to me he is not really describing anger. I think that his description is more apt to be considered hate. Blake’s metaphor hides the part of anger that is abrupt and explosive. His use of the plant is closer to what we talked about in class in terms of love. If his use of anger as a tree was used in our culture, anger would be spoken of very differently. “My anger blossomed” or “my anger bloomed.” “My anger grew” or “my anger flowered.”

We discussed in class the issue of accountability between these two metaphors. With the dynamite metaphor, there is little accountability attributed to the person who becomes angry. The fault is blamed on the person who provided the stimulus (or stimuli) to ignite the fuse. The resulting explosion of anger is not the angry person’s fault; it is just the natural course of events from the lighting of the fuse.

With anger as a plant, the accountability is placed on the person who is angry because that person must water the tree in order for it to survive. I want to expand that metaphor further, because I feel that the metaphor incorrectly places all of the blame on the one angry person. If the person without the tree continues to anger the person with the tree, that is like rain. The person with the tree could not water the tree, yet the rain from the other person could still cause the tree to grow.

MT intro .2

2006-04-04T15:13:00.000-05:00

Technology (as described by dictionary.com)
The application of science, especially to industrial or commercial objectives. The scientific method and material used to achieve a commercial or industrial objective.
Electronic or digital products and systems considered as a group: a store specializing in office technology.
Anthropology. The body of knowledge available to a society that is of use in fashioning implements, practicing manual arts and skills, and extracting or collecting materials.

The wording of the definition of technology as listed above must be expanded if writing is to be included. The economics definition of technology is simply “the way things are put together” (source: economics 201 and 202). This is a definition of technology that if looked at generally, can already include writing. If writing is merely a way of putting thoughts, ideas, and stories together, than writing is merely an advance in technology over the oral tradition. The problem is that in today’s society, most people do not see technology in that light. When most people hear the word technology, they think of things like computers, MP3 players, and other expensive consumer electronics.

I do think that the general definition of technology should be expanded to include writing. I am not sure that it should include other means of thinking, because I am not quite sure what other means of thinking are in this case. I can imagine some circumstances when I am thinking through a problem where I might consider writing as a technology to help solve the issue. Whenever I think about buying an expensive electronic or any other big buying decision, I usually mentally compare the benefits with the costs. I suppose I could use writing to make a nice chart or two separate lists to do the same things, but I imagine it would be easier to do mentally unless I was dealing with a lot of factors.

I still view writing as a technology, especially after rereading my posts on Frankenstein’s monster and how learning language and reading negatively affected him. If reading and speaking are to be considered technology, than writing as technology is a logical progression even without the other reasons I consider writing to be a technology. There were no better examples ever really talked about than mine in how writing could be used as a technology to solve a problem, but I think that was because no one else in class said anything.

Some more examples of why I strongly feel that writing is a technology is because writing is one of the main pillars of civilization. Without writing, none of what most people consider technology would exist today. There would be no computers, space shuttles, I-pods, or cell phones because all of those things are electronics and require computer code to be written. Mathematics, at least anything beyond basic math, needs writing in order to exist, which would mean no automobiles or planes or a million other things would exist without writing.

My ads

2006-04-03T23:06:00.000-05:00

TI 4.2

2006-04-02T23:00:00.000-05:00

The image I try to convey to others is the same as how I actually view myself. I try to convey the message that I don’t really care what other people think about me and I do this in two main ways. One way is in how I dress and appear physically. I wear old jeans that are starting to fade and some sort of t-shirt that might or might not have a humorous or possibly offensive image/reference on it. That in itself may not seem to be very important until you place me into the environment created by the majority of the student body here at Miami. The long hair, for a guy anyway, isn’t so much a part of my image as it is the woman who always cut my hair got pregnant and I never bothered to get anyone else to do it.

Another part of my image is how I act and speak, or don’t speak, around others. I tend to not be the one to talk unless I have something important to say. Another part of my image is that I try to speak my mind and let people know what I think about them and many other subjects. While these two things may seem mutually contradictory, they aren’t. The "me" that lets people know what I think of them and on other subjects generally comes into play in one on one conversation while the “not talking unless I have something important to say” comes into play when I am around a larger group of people.

All of my ads make comments on how men or women should act or how they should look. The Abercrombie and Fitch ad, from their Abercrombie and Fitch Lifestyle gallery, shows an image of 3 shirtless guys who are very well muscled and tanned. This ad conveys that all men need to be in superb physical shape. Another ad from American apparel conveys a similar image. It depicts a very attractive girl wearing a skimpy skin-tight piece of clothing that I have no idea what it is called. It is accompanied by a caption that says “It fits.” This ad says that women should look like this, and while the image is nice, it is completely unrealistic for the vast majority of women to achieve. Two of my remaining ads deal with influencing men on two pieces of technology. One is a remote next to the image of a woman with each picture labeled and listing features. The features end up favoring the remote and the ad ends saying “Both would look great sitting next to you on the couch.” The other technology ad is dealing with a code c.d. for the X-Box and Game Cube video game systems. On one side there is a picture of an older woman in hair curlers labeled “the wife” and on the other side is a soaking wet, attractive, young woman in a bikini undoing the bottom labeled “the mistress.” The ad is further captioned “sometimes ya gotta cheat” and “cheating made easy.” This ad equates cheating on your wife in real life to cheating in a video game and goes even further and trivializes that action. My last ad is a pair of pictures. In the first, there is a woman’s legs crossed and a man’s hands holding a closed jewelry case. The next picture is similar except the jewelry case is now open and there is a ring inside and the woman’s legs are now uncrossed. This ad seems to support the old Pygmalion view that all women are prostitutes and if you give them something nice they will do whatever you want.

These ads probably affect women’s sense of self more than men’s. Women see pictures of what they could never hope to achieve and become depressed and develop eating disorders while men see pictures and think something like “well I could look like that if I just worked out” and go back to living our life the same we always have.

I don’t think any of the ideas or expectations in my ads seem reasonable except for maybe the Abercrombie ad because being muscled as a guy can possibly be equated with being healthy. The image of women that are depicted in ads are unreasonable as they are impossible to achieve and unhealthy as well.

I think the question of why the ads depict what they do is more important than the actual ads themselves. Is it simply that we want to see pretty people associated with products we use? I think that association is part of the answer, but it goes deeper than that. Marketers try to use their ads to develop a relationship with the consumers that will keep the consumer coming back and using the same product. The marketers want consumers to remember all of the good times they had when using the product, and they do this by showing advertisements involving beautiful people who are also having a great time.

questions from class

2006-04-02T19:06:00.000-05:00

When Cinderella wishes for anything, the white dove that sat on the tree by her mother’s grave “would drop it like an egg upon the ground.” This is not a good image of a desirable event. It is, in fact, probably one of the worst ways you could get something that you wished for. The image of a bird defecating out whatever Cinderella wished for is somewhat unsavory. When the bird gives Cinderella her golden dress and slippers, Sexton mentions that this is a “rather large package for a simple bird” in another scatological reference to how birds seem to defecate a large amount for their size.

The image of the prince and Cinderella living together is not a good image to me, but I think that many people desire it. Sexton mentions they live like two dolls in a museum case, which is a static unchanging environment. Growth and development is critical in any relationship, and that can’t happen if the entire relationship is held in a stasis. I would not want to end up this way for a number of reasons. The main reason would be that if nothing ever changes, the relationship would get old real fast and I would be bored with the routine. Cinderella and the prince are never bothered by any problems such as diapers or dust. I mentioned earlier in the class when we were talking about another subject (Frankenstein I think), that without sorrow or a downside, there can be no joy or happiness because you can’t know one without the other. If a marriage has no bad moments, then the question about whether it can have any good moments becomes important. Whenever I see a phrase about “smiles being pasted on” I always think of those social situations where two people don’t like each other yet they must pretend to out of politeness and good manners.

I think that many people today do try to slice off their body parts to fit into a certain role or image. Women do it by trying to look certain ways and be whatever image is popular at the moment while men seem to do it in how we act. Men are raised being told that we have to act a certain way and appear emotionally to be a certain way whereas in many cases women are raised being told they need to look a certain way physically.

Advertisers convince people to buy products in a number of ways. One way is to convince people that they need to buy the product, such as with the diamond ring being necessary for marriage. The “A diamond is forever” slogan led to their being a new generation where “a diamond ring is considered a necessity for engagement to virtually everyone.”

The commodity-image system deals with how consumers achieve satisfaction and dissatisfaction through good. Consumers see through advertising that using a good should make them happy, but they don’t become happy by using the good, they just have the image of being happy. The system deals with people who now feel good because of what possessions they have rather than who they are as human beings. It reminds me a lot of Miami’s environment where you know you are cool if you walk, or drive in your Jetta, with your collar popped while listening to an I-Pod and wearing a North Face jacket. The advertisements use images to show how the products will affect you on the most basic of levels and greatly improve your quality of life just by going and buying the product.

Jhally thinks that advertisers connect products to things that make us happy in order to get us to buy a product. Things like “the good life,” friends, family, relationships, and travel all connect with people as ideal situations to be desired. Jhally thinks that these products can’t actually make us happy, but I slightly disagree. Every time I look at my Acura I start feeling all warm and fuzzy inside because I see my car and know that I paid for it myself and it is all mine. However, I do for the most part agree with Jhally that any convenience good will not bring happiness, but those major economic purchase decisions are an exception to Jhally’s claim.

I forgot that the original Cinderella was much more gruesome than the Disney version. I think this fits with Jhally and how advertising can change society. People only think of the Disney version of Cinderella, or any other fairy tale, instead of thinking of the original violent versions. When originally writing about slicing off body parts, I can’t believe I forgot that people literally do chop off parts of their bodies to fit into roles by having plastic surgery.

TI 1.2

2006-03-07T23:23:00.000-05:00

I think the first time Mary Shelley’s monster found out he was different was immediately after he was created. Frankenstein’s reaction to the monsters appearance wasn’t lost on the monster, and, as a result, the monster ran off. The monster’s realization was reinforced after he saved the girl’s life and a few villagers still chased him off. However, the monster doesn’t realize why and how he is different until he learns how to read and understand language as he lives outside the De Lacey’s cottage.

I think that the monster’s feelings of difference and exclusion did come from his interactions with other people. From the moment of the monster’s creation, he was influenced negatively by contact with humans. The reading and writing showed the monster why he was different and excluded. When the monster learned about wealth and physical beauty and other traits that people admired, he realized he had none of these and that is why he was rejected. The reading of various books shows him that he is not what people would consider good, and it shows him the alternative to being good, which is evil.

I always thought that the purpose of reading and going to movies was to help people understand and come closer, not to alienate them. After thinking about it, I believe that a recent Turkish movie that came out called Valley of the Wolves is an example of a film that might make people feel excluded and different. Because the movie deals with political issues, it excludes anyone with a different viewpoint than the one it expresses. This can be said of almost any movie or writing that makes a strong point on any heated topic such as abortion, war, the death penalty, or pretty much anything political and religious. However, I feel that this exclusion only occurs when the views are expressed in such an extreme manner that it prohibits reasoned discussion. When presented in a reasonable and fair manner, any topic can be read about or seen on film without excluding any one person or group.

Pip first achieves consciousness of himself on “a memorable raw afternoon towards evening” (Dickens, CH 1) as he was standing in a cemetery staring at the graves of his parents and 5 brothers. Pip realizes at this moment that he is all alone, and his view of the world is that it is a harsh and bitter place. His description of the sea as a “distant savage lair” shows his feelings of loneliness and fear. He even goes so far as to describe himself as a “small bundle of shivers,” and he was also crying. His situation bears some similarities to that o Frankenstein’s monster, but there are also differences.

Like the monster, Pip had no parent figures to show him love and affection. However, in Pip’s case he still had an older sister who looked after him and took care of him, whereas the monster was completely alone. The monster also shared Pip’s view of the world. The monster had to deal with the elements of nature just as Pip described the cold wind coming from a “savage lair.” Pip and the monster also both have bad experiences with people as soon as they achieve consciousness of themselves. This ends up being good for Pip though, as I believe the escaped criminal later pays Pip back for his kindness (Note: I have only seen the South Park version of this work, and it is entirely possible, even probable, that they took some artistic license in their version).

I wrote that the monster’s feeling of exclusion and difference came from his interactions with people. After some thought, I discovered that another reason to feel excluded and different is because of solitude. If a person spends a lot of time alone, that can lead to a feeling of exclusion or difference even though people may well be fully willing to associate and include him or her. I do not think that is the case with Frankenstein’s monster, but for a person it could be true.

In dealing with Pip, the moment he first achieves consciousness could further be described as to the point when he realizes he stole food and faked a robbery of his house and is now considered a criminal. Pip, like the monster, feels both excluded and evil.

NT 5.1 part 1

2006-02-22T00:10:00.000-05:00

The narrative changed slightly between the letter I wrote to my mom and the letter I wrote to my friend. When writing to my mom, I used less detail about things that a normal parent would consider negative and wrote more about the lesson I learned. When writing to my friend, I used more detail on the things most people wouldn’t want to know, and also used the lower of the times frames that I gave my mother. I was also less formal when writing to my friend.
The published account is closer to the letter to my mom than it is to the letter to my friend. I think I went into a bit more detail with the published account, and used even more formal writing that I did to my mother. I think the “me” in all accounts stays pretty consistent, except the “me” in the letter to my friend is less contrite about his actions than any of the other “me’s”.

NT 4.2

2006-02-15T00:08:00.000-05:00

The Wizard of Oz contains many metaphors such as “follow the yellow brick road” and “going over the rainbow.” However, I never really took an interest in this movie as it did not have anything to entertain me with as a child and it still doesn’t now that I am older, so I apologize in advance for any plot discrepancies or inconsistencies or things I accidentally make up as I go along.

The narrative structure of the Wizard of Oz as I remember is fairly simple. There are the participants Dorothy, the tin man, the lion, the scarecrow, the witch, and the wizard. The primary participant, Dorothy, is brought to a magical place and forced to go on a journey to find a wizard who can send her home. Along the way, she meets friends and enemies and is forced to overcome obstacles. When she finally gets back home, she recognizes the people in her life as the people who were in her dream.

In a general sense, most autobiographies do follow the basic plot of the Wizard of Oz. A generic autobiography of someone who overcame a problem would probably involve a lot of the same features as the movie. Someone has a dream and most go on a quest to accomplish it. Along the way they will make lifelong friends who will help that person overcome the obstacles he faces. To achieve this dream, the person must find or do this one thing, such as talking to a wizard, which will allow them to finally reach their goal. I do not actually read autobiographies, so I can’t actually give any specific examples. I don’t know if the story is trying to tell us what our stories should be like if we are as good as Dorothy because I don’t see any evidence that Dorothy was good. I look at it this way, anything Dorothy did to help others was done because it furthered her own goals and she was able to do it without inconveniencing herself. Her deal with the tin man, lion, and scarecrow was that if they helped her maybe the wizard would help them. I feel Dorothy was just a greedy person manipulating others for her own personal gain. To be good, she would really have to be motivated by something other than her own self-interest.

Viewing “going over the rainbow” as a metaphor for watching TV or going to the movies is interesting because in the movie Dorothy is escaping from reality (her life in Kansas) when she goes, much as people watch TV or go to the movies to escape their everyday life. I would argue; however, that that only holds true for some TV shows. For example, I mainly watch cartoons and other shows that are satirical and use humor to make fun of current events. I don’t think this is using TV to escape reality. If the TV shows being watched deal with reality and current events going on in the world, then reality is still being viewed, just from a humorous angle. For example, the one show I pretty much watch on a daily basis is The Daily Show with Jon Stewart. This is a “fake” news program that takes current events and people and shows just how ridiculous many of the current events really are. Rater than escaping reality by watching this show, I am using humor to view reality in a new light so it is no longer weighing down on me. South Park is another good example of this. The creators, Matt Parker and Trey Stone, take current events that are often split evenly on two sides and show just how stupid both sides really are.

Watching soap operas because you sit at home every day and have pretty much nothing going for you in life is using TV to escape from reality. Also, I imagine that at one point or another, everyone has gone to a movie and superimposed themselves in the star role of the film. I don’t know if that is exactly the same as Dorothy going to Oz, as I think she learned something from her experience, but it is close.

The Wizard of Oz seems to say that we should not go to movies or watch TV to merely escape reality because when you do that you ultimately end up right back where you started. I don’t know if the movie really tells us how we can be good viewers like Dorothy is a “good” girl, but it does tell us that it is possible to be good viewers and that that is what we should be.

As of the end of the year, I think that Dorothy could be a good person. The argument I made is the kind of argument that can only be made when you haven’t seen the movie and know only the vaguest outline of what happens. However, I have always been a fan of taking the opposite side of the majority and arguing the opposing point of view, so I stand by what I said. I have tried to think of what exactly a good viewer is and the closest I can determine a good viewer is someone who watches and takes away some lesson or meaning from what he or she saw. Hopefully, that lesson they take away will help them in some way with a problem in their own life.

2.2

2006-02-07T22:45:00.000-05:00

I think that what people are willing to tolerate in a robot varies greatly from person to person. Also, what we tolerate in robots is closely linked to whether or not we are threatened by them. A person who worked in an auto factory who was laid off because his job is now being done faster, better, and cheaper by a robot is not willing to tolerate things in a robot that I would tolerate. Those things threaten the auto worker because it makes the cars I buy cheaper. If I had to try to sum up what we can tolerate, I would say that an individual will tolerate any robot that makes his life easier without threatening that person’s economic or social position. There are some flaws with that way of thinking. In Rossum’s Universal Robots the humans have no fear of the robots even though their whole society depends on them, and in the end the robots still can’t get rid of all the humans because the robots can’t replicate themselves.

There are situations in which some people may be threatened by robots. However, there are situations where most people will readily accept the use of robots instead of humans. No one is threatened when our military sends robots in to scout potentially dangerous locations before sending troops in or when robots are used in other situations that would be hazardous to humans. I think that robots become threatening to an individual when they pass that person’s personal threshold of their skills and abilities that hold that person above a robot. Currently, I don’t feel that there is much of a threat as most of the jobs robots are occupying consists of heavy manual labor. However, as our technology becomes more advanced, I feel society must be careful in how advanced we let our robots become, lest they gain more skills that enable them to evolve into a Terminator or Rossum’s Universal Robots style army and wipe out humanity. I think society is aware of this danger as it gets joked about often. For example on The Colbert Report, Stephen Colbert was speaking about how the Mars robots are still functioning long after they were expected to wear out. He joked that NASA shouldn’t have sent two robots, because now they could reproduce and create an army.

I feel that it is easier to accept robots that look like what they are than it is to accept robots that are disguised as something else like a person. An exception to being able to accept them is if they look like the robots in terminator with glowing red eyes and metal feet that can easily crush human skulls. As long as the robot looks like a machine, it will be difficult for robots to become such an integral part of our society unnoticed. The problem with making a robot look like a human is that most people will instinctively judge the robot and its actions by human standards. The robot will look human yet it will probably move and speak and act in a completely different manner. I think one reason for this is because so much or our perception is based on sight. In Frankenstein, everyone is revolted by the monster just because he looks hideous. The one person who doesn’t immediately reject the monster is the blind man because he is judging the monster on how he speaks and acts, rather than on his looks. When we see something that looks like us, we automatically assume that it will be like us. I don’t think it is just eyes, or a mouth, or humor, but rather when it is all put together it creates something similar to us.

Regardless of whether or not animal behavior is like human behavior, people generally to try to relate various animals’ actions to those of a human. I think nothing better shows this than with Americans and their pet dogs. Every time a see someone, usually a woman, walking around with her dog, which is all dressed up like a person, or overhear someone talking about how their dog is just like a person it makes me want to cry. People force themselves to believe that their dog is just like them, rather than some animal that just does stupid things. With animals that are even closer to us, such as chimps and orangutans, most of what I see is people trying to find humor in their behavior because people try to liken the animals to humans. Yet, with robots, people generally try to make them as far removed from humans as possible. With animals, we can attribute to them human characteristics because when it comes down to it, they do not look human. I think that maybe why we do not want robots to look too much like us is because then we would start to attribute human characteristics to them and they might end up being like people.

I still agree with my past self that any given individual will accept a robot as long as it doesn’t threaten his or her own social or economic position. However, I don’t really think humanity would have anything to worry about with technology and robots becoming more advanced, at least in terms of a robot uprising. On further thought of why humanity might want to make animals more human and robots less so, I think it comes down to psychology. By making something more like ourselves, we can relate to it more and that helps ease humanities fears of that thing because it is no longer strange and unusual. That might be why there is such fear and concern over robots. People are distancing robots from humans instead of bringing them closer.

2.1

2006-02-02T23:50:00.000-05:00

I think that by creating robots we can learn about what it means to be human by simply looking at and interacting with them and discovering what we have and they don’t. For example, most of our robots are designed to look nothing like humans for the simple reason that very few people with have to interact with them and their job requires a different design. It is only when robots get more complex and are in a position where they interact with more people that they become humanoid in design. For example, Honda’s ASIMO robot, which teaches traffic safety to children, is built to have two arms, two legs, a torso, and a head while still remaining alien enough that it will always be recognized as a robot. Granted, part of this is because even with the best technology we have now any attempt to make it look human would be futile, but I feel that part of it is because we, as society, don’t want to make anything that is too close to us.

Society may prefer not to make anything to closely resembling humans for the simple reason that it would disturb many people to look at something that appears human and yet is not. If technology eventually got to the point where humans and robots could not be told apart, than a situation much like the one with Daneel and the humans in Caves of Steel might occur. Other than this book, I can’t think of any other story or movie where robots that look like humans turns out well for humanity. I can think of plenty that turn out badly, such as Terminator or Do Androids Dream of Electric Sheep?, but none that end up with humanity being ok. Another reason could be that society recognizes the evil that is inherent with people, and do not want to create robots in our own image for fear that they would end up like us.

Tank is an interesting example of what can be done with modern technology. He can, to a limited extent, communicate with others and by this communication we can learn about what it takes to communicate. One of the failings with Tank is that no matter how much back story they program into him, like his brother’s wedding, he does not have a personality. He can be programmed with any back stories his designers want, but when all is said and done he is still limited to what he was programmed to say. Even R. Daneel Olivaw, who was designed to infiltrate and interact with humans couldn’t stand up to scrutiny. While everything R. Daneel Olivaw did and said was correct, it still was awkward and wrong. For true communication between people, there are supposed to be no boundaries that such programming creates. When someone swears at Tank or asks him for directions, he does not understand because no one included that recognition into his programming while if someone swore at me I would most likely respond in kind, ignore them, or otherwise verbally assault them.

I think that while it is possible for communication without the emotional aspect many people would avoid it. Even over e-mail or any written form of communication, it is often possible to discern a person’s emotions if they write a certain way or use certain words. When I talk to friends over instant messenger they can often tell when I am being sarcastic or when I am upset because they know me and how I talk. Without this knowledge, it might be harder to detect, but it is still possible. I guess that is why emoticons were created; so people could more easily express emotions although I do not generally use them myself. I have found that when directly communicating with people if you speak in an emotionless voice they often get uncomfortable. This discomfort is probably caused by the fact that emotions are one of the primary features that distinguish humanity from robots. However, speaking monotone before robots was met the same way, so maybe it is just a matter of being seen as emotionless makes you less than human. I don’t know if a human could interact on a daily basis with robots like that. All of my favorite robots from science fiction, such as Marvin from Douglas Adam’s Hitchhiker’s series, any of the Nexus-6’s from Dick’s Do Androids Dream of Electric Sheep, and C-3PO and R2-D2 all were loved by many fans because of the fact that they have personality. Readers could sympathize with Marvin and his depression and feel sympathetic to the feelings of the Nexus-6’s as Deckard hunts them down. Movie fans grew attached to C-3PO and R2-D2 because of how they interacted with each other. One was spineless and the other had an attitude, they were the robot odd couple.

Personally I think it would be awesome if there were robots like R. Daneel Olivaw. I wouldn’t mind working with a robot because there would be a number of advantages to it. Working with robots would mean that I wouldn’t have to train them to do their job, and they would only need slight watching over as they should not make mistakes or forget how to do their jobs if they are programmed properly. My only problem would be that R. Daneel Olivaw did not have a sense of humor. I do not think you could really program a sense of humor into a robot. Jokes and maybe a software analysis package on when to laugh might make the robot appear to have at least a limited sense of humor, but in the end it would not. At my job, we pass a lot of time by telling jokes and messing around, so I would be trading work for boredom. After some thought, I feel I would definitely work with R. Daneel Olivaw.

While many of the people in class seemed to think that robots that were like humans were a bad thing (such as robot police), I continue to feel that putting robots into more vital roles in society would be a good thing. However, I still think this is a long way off as our class discussion showed most of society is still to scared and unwilling to move forward in this way.

NT 1.2

2006-01-26T19:46:00.000-05:00

Frankenstein’s creation is an emotional creature. When he is watching the De Laceys, he cannot directly interact with them, yet his emotions mimic theirs. “When they were unhappy, I felt depressed; when they rejoiced, I sympathized in their joys” (Shelley, 93). I view Frankenstein’s creature at this stage as similar to that of a baby. He is almost completely disconnected from the world and all he knows are Felix, the Old Man, and Agatha just as a baby only knows his parents and a few others at most. Like a baby, the creature is very dependant on others, except where a baby needs guidance for survival the creature needs the social aspects of guidance. That is why the creature sleeps in the kennel and does chores for the De Laceys, so that when he reveals himself they will greet him with joy instead of horror. This is also the point in the creature’s life when he starts feeling more complex emotions. The creature feels guilt for the first time when he realizes that by taking food from the De Laceys he caused suffering by taking from an all ready insufficient stock of food.

I find it interesting that despite the fact that the creature has so far only faced rejection and horror, both from Frankenstein and villagers he has come across along his travels, he is still innocent and benevolent. I would think this rejection would make him more violent and embittered towards man, but it does not.

The creature learns to speak while he is watching the De Laceys. “This was indeed a godlike science, and I ardently desired to become acquainted with it” (Shelley, 92-93). I think the creature felt that this would bring him closer to the De Laceys, just as earlier civilizations and even modern religions have rituals designed to bring the closer to their god(s). The creature also said that he realized that words could cause joy or pain. I feel that at this point the creature just wanted to cause joy, but later when he talked to Frankenstein his words were meant to cause pain. When the creature says, “I will be with you on your wedding night” (Shelley, 147), or any number of other lines to Frankenstein, the creature is well aware of the suffering they will cause. The question of how language affected his feelings is difficult. The creature never had a chance for any benevolent use of language, and because the creature could now understand words, it gave others more opportunity to hurt him. Before the pain he felt was physical, but now the creature can suffer the emotional pain that comes through abuse by language. When the creature heard Felix teaching Safie and learned about classes and rank it devastated him. “I cannot describe to you the agony that these reflections inflicted upon me…but sorrow only increased with knowledge” (Shelley, 101), the creature realized that he had nothing that humans seemed to value and could never be a part of them. I don’t know if it can be said that language made him more violent. Granted, all of his violent acts occurred after he learned language, but the creature also hadn’t suffered that much by the time he learned to speak. I suppose one could argue that the verbal abuse he suffered because he learned language made him more violent, but I don’t think so as the verbal abuse the creature suffered was generally accompanied by some physical assault.

“They produced in me an infinity of new images and feelings that sometimes raised me to ecstasy, but more frequently sunk me into the lowest dejection” (Shelley, 108). Learning to read had an extremely negative affect on the creature because it made him realize what a hideous thing he truly was. But reading also taught him to abhor vice and to “admire and love the heroes of ages past” (Shelley, 109).That was until he read Paradise Lost, and after that the creature just felt bitter. He saw himself as being like Adam; only instead of happiness he got rejection. He began to hate Victor and all of humanity for denying him what he felt he deserved. “Accursed creator! Why did you form a monster so hideous that even you turned from me in disgust?” (Shelley, 110). The creature rants on after that, against both God and man and compared himself to a creation of Satan like Adam was of God. After this, I feel that the creature did become more violent, as he felt rejected by everyone on the basis of what he had read.

In class we talked about how shipbuilding led to the end of the golden age. Looking back, I now think that learning language and learning how to read was the creature’s own personal shipbuilding. This is a case where ignorance truly is bliss. Without being able to read, the creature would never have known that he was forever inadequate and an outcast by society’s standards.

I still feel that the technology of reading and writing did not directly lead to violence. Just by looking at history, violence is always present even before reading and writing were around. The most I think anyone could reasonably argue is that those technologies gave him more powerful tools with which to harm people.

NT 1.3

2006-01-19T22:34:00.000-05:00

Walton never claims to want to find the Northwest Passage for the fame and wealth that it would give him. Victor Frankenstein did not do his work for the fame or fortune it would bring him, he did it because of his ambition and drive to follow his dream. The fact that Victor and Walton hit it off so fast and became close would lead me to believe that the motives Walton actually claimed to have are his real motives. Walton even says “My life might have been passed in ease and luxury; but I preferred glory to every enticement that wealth placed in my path” (Shelley, 3). That still leaves fame as one of Walton’s possible motives, but wealth was something that he didn’t desire.

Walton wanted to find “a land never before imprinted by the foot of man” and a “land surpassing in wonders and in beauty every region hitherto discovered on the habitable globe” (Shelley, 1). Walton, like Victor, was exploring the bounds of humanity and society. Walton was, in a sense, Victor’s counterpart. While Victor stretched society and humanity through mental means of science, Walton used the physical realm of trying to discover new areas of the earth to literally expand humanity and society. Walton has ambition, he was devastated when he failed at what he thought was his true calling, poetry, but when he got the money he grabbed onto his next dream, finding the Northwest Passage, and is trying with all his might to accomplish his goals.

Victor describes his motives as “a scientific pursuit there is a continual food for wonder and discovery” (Shelley, 36). He was attracted to the structure of anything containing life. I think Shelley is trying to tell us that their motives were fairly pure, at least at the beginning, even if they had a feeling of playing God to them. Victor was trying to be like the traditional god, as his goal was to figure out how to create and bestow life on an inanimate object. Its possible Victor might have only been after this for the power and wealth it could give him, but I feel that he probably just wanted to help other people. Walton’s goals were different; I am not sure what Shelley was trying to say with him except perhaps that he was going someplace that man might not have been intended to go, but he was driven by human curiosity.

I feel that all great innovators are first driven by their dreams to go somewhere that man has not been before. Bill Gates did that with computers, he expanded into a brand new area, dropping out of college to do it, and created one of the most successful companies of all time. As I said about both Walton and Victor, ambition drove him and helped him become the success he is today. Without ambition, Gates probably wouldn’t have done what he did. However, I feel that like with many before him, he has since drifted away from those dreams and ideals and been seduced by just amassing more for himself. I think that it is one of the downsides that is inherent in success. If a person lets their success go to their head, it is easy to wander off the path of the idealist and explorer and become what you once abhorred. I was always fond of the saying, “Power corrupts, but absolute power is pretty neat” (yes, I know this isn’t how the saying originally went, but this version is better). Maybe the reason that they wander off the path is that idealists generally want the best for everyone and once they get that taste of power they decide that they must set about giving the people what they need. Unfortunately, what they perceive the people to need and what the people actually desire is quite different.

After some thought, and after my reading of Frankenstein, I think that Walton might not have been without any selfish motives. Walton, like Victor, did not know when to let go of a dream. Victor’s refusal to let go of a dream devasted his entire life. Walton also did not want to turn back even when it became clear it was guaraunteed suicide to continue on with his exploration. Only after the crew managed to convince him to turn back through threats and please did he give up on his dream.

In dealing with Bill Gates, I find myself still in agreement with my former self about the man. He was driven by ambition like Walton and Victor, but it has not destroyed his life.

NT1.1

2006-01-12T22:18:00.000-05:00

I do not think that scientists should be limited in what they do. They should be watched over and regulated in how they do what they do, but that is much different than limiting them. Government control and regulation of research is enough, as it is not possible to impose our way on the rest of the world. Somehow, somewhere, scientists would conduct their research and experiments in secret, which would be worse. Better to have experiments conducted with government oversight than to force people to work in secret.

Similarly, according to Hawthorne, scientists should be limited or regulated. His story shows what happens when science is carried out recklessly with no oversight or accountability. Hawthorne shows that science, when not conducted properly, only leads to suffering, death, and destruction. This happened in this story because Aylmer lost his way. He forgot science was about trial and error, and every mistake made is still a learning experience. Aylmer became obsessed with perfection. Aylmer had a passion for science that surpassed his love for his wife and that is what caused him to act the way he did towards his wife even when other’s around him felt differently. Aminadab even says, “If she were my wife I’d never part with that birthmark.” I think Hawthorne’s story more deals with trying to impose science on others who really don’t care for it or want it. Georgiana didn’t need or even desire the treatment for the birthmark removal. Any desire she had for it merely stemmed from her desire to make her husband happy.

I haven’t read Shelley in a long time, but from what I remember Frankenstein’s creation started out as intelligent and friendly, and only humanities rejection of it caused its anger. It seems what Shelley was trying to say was that society needs to be ready to accept what science is able to create before scientists actually create it.

I think both these texts serve to warn society as a whole that we should be cautious when dealing with new science and technology, but also that it should not be rejected merely because it is new and stretches the bounds of society.

Looking back now, I still agree with my past self that scientists should be limited in what they do. Hawthorne’s story was more a warning not to let passion and obsession over science spill over into your personal life. I think that maybe Hawthorne was trying to say that science has a time and place, but it is sometimes not the best solution to a problem. I am surprised that I myself agree with Hawthorne on this point, as I am usually solidly in the camp of science scoffing at those people who choose religion over science. In this case, that passion for science wars with my belief that people should not have things forced onto them, such as Georgiana and her husband’s desire to turn her into his perception of perfection.